HOME | DD
yourparodies — The Hobbit - Aragorn vs the Troll of Sauron...
Published: 2013-01-21 19:37:02 +0000 UTC; Views: 42378; Favourites: 469; Downloads: 457
Redirect to original
Description
Sauron ain't called The Deciever for nothing... ;o)The sad thing is, that with the exception of the Jersey Shire line, these are actually all quotes from actual people XD
The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit (c) New Line Cinema, Warner Brothers, J. R. R. Tolkien
Related content
Comments: 214
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Both are amamzing Trilogies, Im hoping to see one day a serie about Aragorn
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
DROWN THE AIR IN HOBBIT-DISLIKER CRIES, AND THE EARTH IN HOBBIT-DISLIKER BLOOD. XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The terror in Pippin's eyes is legitimate.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I found out who Uwe Boll is...I thank God every time I watch them that Peter Jackson made them.
Imagine Michael Bay *shudders*
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
So much zeal, so much passion, so much -- hurrah!
- Take Care, Beannacht De Duit
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
A strikingly well formulated argument, good sir, I must admit I have never looked at it from that particular angle before.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'm actually myself working on an audio review defending the Hobbit trilogy. ^^
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I've been giving it some thought writing a couple of articles on the subject myself.
Though it's a sad day, when such a beautiful trilogy needs defending, if you ask me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's downright baffling and confusing to me. I mean, yes, sure, the movies changed stuff... but so did the Lord of the Rings movies. People seem to dig for flaws in the Hobbit movies, even though it just feels absurd and farfetched.
Good god, you have no idea how refreshing it feels to talk to someone like you who actually appreciates them. XP All 6 movies are my all-time favorite movies. And... sure, it's not like I'm telling people they MUST love them. But all the unfair criticism is seriously starting to drive me insane.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hear, hear!
I can pretty much just repeat all you just said... People hate on these movies for all the wrong reasons... And it really irks me, because it's absolutely unfair in this case. PJ and his crew put so much effort and love into making these movies, and yet, many dismiss them as mere "cashgrabs", even though that couldn't be further away from the truth... It really is mindboggling... -_-
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Like... they say they split it into three movies just for the money. Which is insane - he wouldn't put his freakin' soul into each movie if that was the case. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 - now THAT is an example of a book being split into more than one movie just for the money, because almost nothing happens in that movie. Well, nothing that couldn't be shortened down to 20-30 minutes, at least.
And... something like seeing the dwarf army now in Battle of the Five Armies, and seeing how they operate? We've never ever seen that before in ANY movie, and it looks SO awesome... yet, people don't seem to care.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Exactly. If it was a cashgrab, they would just pump out 3 90 minute movies, and that with much less detail and work put into them. I mean I have the Official Movie Guide and the Chronicles books for the movies, and you can read in great detail in them, how much effort was put into making these things, further evidenced by the DVD behind the scenes, and so forth... And yet, some people DARE to say, it's a lasy cashgrab... Well, I'm 100% certain, that those idiots have never ever work even half as hard as anyone on these movies in their bloody lives.
Anyone, who can just look at these movies and say, that there was no effort put into them, is either lying or outright stupid.
Not to mention, that all these haters never even bring any arguments to the table, they just... declare things. Maybe someone should tell them, that's not how arguments work...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's pretty ironic how THEY accuse them of being lazy with the Hobbit movies... meanwhile, they are themselves being lazy by not looking up stuff before spewing out unfair statements. Like, there's no way in hell any of the haters have seen the behind-the-scenes material for the Hobbit movies.
I mean, sure... there are arguments that are fine to state for having problems with the movies. But... this stuff with accusing the movies for overusing CGI? Come on... there's just as much of the practical effects, models, set-pieces, and real costumes this time around as in the Lord of the Rings movies. People are just whiny because SOME of the new orcs are in CGI. And... CGI seems to be irrationally popular to harp on no matter what.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But... this stuff with accusing the movies for overusing CGI?
Oh God, I'm soooo tired of those... Although this isn't exclusive to the Hobbit movies, but still. They talk as if CGI is a bad thing. Not to mention, for every movie that comes out, some bloody idiot will just go and state that "this is the worst CGI I have ever seen, Jurassic Park had better CGI than this", which is obviously bullshit...
I mean there were some crybabies who were stupid enough to say, that Smaug was the worst CGI they have ever seen... Like, really? Smaug?! These movies had pretty much no "bad CGI", and Smaug was not only amazing, but a whole new level, so how anyone can say something like that is beyond me...
And all this hate on Azog...
I mean let's be real, they could have never done those facial movements he had with practical effects... I mean pretty much all orks in LOTR were just grunting and hating, but we never really saw an orc like Azog before, in terms of personality. I mean the guy displays a huge array of emotions - something no orc before has done - , and to bring that alive, you need an actor's performance. Something you can't really do through a tick, prostetic mask, but is completely possible through CGI.
Not to mention that because he is CGI, they aren't limited to 7 foot actors anymore, so instead of some basketballplayer or wrestler, they can get an actual actor for the role...
But then again, he's CGI and he's not in the book, so I guess that makes him a perfect bullseye for online haters.
Another fun thing about CGI haters is, that often their comments betray the fact, that they can't even tell CGI from practical effects... ^_^ I remember some guy telling me, how this and that in the movies was crap, because it was CGI, even though they were done with practical effects... And when I told him, he told me to fuck myself and left in a sissy fit... XD
It's pretty ironic how THEY accuse them of being lazy with the Hobbit movies... meanwhile, they are themselves being lazy by not looking up stuff before spewing out unfair statements.
Ah yes, my favorite kind... It seems to be the general attitude of the 21st century to be a whiny, entitled asshole, sadly, at least for most people. Most people don't even argue, they just .... state things. And everythings about how they could have done better, how Big Bag Hollywood is all evil, how they raped their childhoods and all that fake melodrama....
A good example for this would be the subject of this one:
yourparodies.deviantart.com/ar…
And I took this one word for word from an actual Youtube comment... And there are waaay too many lazy, entitled, arrogant whiners like that around.
They write first and think later - or better yet, don't think at all.
It's just sad, really... Millions of years of evolution went into crafting the human brain, and all for what?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What the fuck?! People say the CGI of Smaug and Azog is bad?! It looks fucking amazing, what the hell are they even talking about?!
But yeah, it's honestly almost hilariously bad with how much people exaggerate how "shitty" CGI is to them... all just because they can SEE it's CGI. But heck, unlike the Lord of the Rings movies, the Hobbit movies SHOULD feel more "fantasy"-like or "fairy tale"-like, keeping in tone with the book. This is also why they have the so-called "CGI-filter" in a lot of scenes. People call it ugly and fake... meanwhile, I think it makes the scenes look like beautiful paintings in movements. Just because it doesn't look so-called "realistic" doesn't mean it's ugly. -_-
LOL Really? XD You know, that reminds me of the weird shit people say about Billy Connolly as Dain Ironfoot in Battle of the Five Armies. They question "why they had to make his face CGI"... and, now after watching the movie three times and seeing the behind-the-scenes stuff, I got to ask what the hell they are talking about?
"Durr, his face looks different than in the production footage"... yeah, so? That doesn't mean it's in CGI in the movie. Just like with the other dwarves, they altered the prosthetics. There is no CGI in his face in the movie, for crying out loud. -_-
LOL That's brilliant. XD Did the idiot who wrote that see this, by the way?
I mean, really now... people just want to respond with hatred as much as they can. But... meh, what can you do? At least people like you and I love and appreciate the movies.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What the fuck?! People say the CGI of Smaug and Azog is bad?! It looks fucking amazing, what the hell are they even talking about?!
Crazy, right? I mean just look at this:
45.media.tumblr.com/74db3e79b9…
All those little subtle emotions on his face could have never been done with prostetics... Not to mention, with prostetics, you would have limited yourself to 7.7 foot "actors", and I don't see that turning out too well... CGI also allows orcs to have different proportions, that could never be done with practical effects... And it really doesn't look any worse, so what's with all the hate? Must be the same idiots, who think, that drawing with photoshop doesn't actually require drawing skills... -_-
all just because they can SEE it's CGI.
It's not even that. Many of them have prooven time and time again, that they can't actually tell the difference, because the CGI was so good... It's just this stupid mindset, that CGI isn't "real", so it has to be fake looking... And that somehow, any art that's done with computers instead of with human hands is somehow inferior...
And that mindset isn't even exclusive to CGI, for example, musicians who can take a keyboard and basically mimic the sound of guitars, drums, string instruments and basically even a whole orchestra, are usualy seen as having less skill than some guy who only knows how to play the guitar... Because he's playing a "real instrument"... -_-
I think part of the problem is also, that people these days are riddiculously spoiled by the entertainment media. They have literally thousands of movies, games, bands and books to choose from, often for free, and the media just drilled this "you are the number one, you are the center of the universe" mindset into the heads of most people...
Which really seems to be the main source of them being so bloody arrogant, ignorant and entitled all the damn time...
Taking their oversized egos down a notch wouldn't hurt the world...
LOL That's brilliant. XD Did the idiot who wrote that see this, by the way?
Don't know, don't care. He wouldn't admit he was an idiot, of that I'm fairly certain. But then again, people who base their opinions on drawing logical conclusions from things don't end up posting comments like that in the fist place...
I mean, really now... people just want to respond with hatred as much as they can.
I know, and the really sad thing is, that this attitude will just grow seeds of hatred and negativity in even those people, who normally wouldn't be like that. Like I'm sure both you and me can get EXTREMELY frustrated by seeing this kind of attitude all over the bloody internet.
I just find it really depressing, that most people abuse the anonimity of the internet to behave like bloody assholes all the time. Is it really that hard to behave like a decent human being, just because one does not have to be affraid of getting punched in the face?
At least people like you and I love and appreciate the movies.
I just wish there was more of this mentality going around, and not just with the Hobbit. I mean there's a billion online forums, but you can barely find people, with whom you can have an intelligent and normal conversation, that involves being polite, and using actual arguments. It's almost all about bitching and being extremely mean and degrading towards everyone. I mean if I want to talk about my favorite movies, I can just go the say, IMDB forums right now, right? Nope, 98% of users there are only talking about negativities in an incredible entitled and rude manner...
I mean really, I just don't get it... Why can't people just find things they like and move on from things they don't? A little live and let live, you know? All this goddamn negativity going around won't help anyone...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah... not much to add on these things without sounding redundant, even though I did read through all that you said.
Though, I'm curious... have you seen the Extended Edition of Battle of the Five Armies yet? I pre-ordered it, so I have recieved it on DVD. XD And... I will admit, the theatrical version felt incomplete and kinda choppy and odd even though I still loved it - but holy shit, the extended cut fixes all the problems I hade with the theatrical cut.
Now when my collection finally is complete, I'm really looking forward to having a marathon of all six movies. Will probably take 3-6 days, but it's worth it. 
But on the other hand, the Hobbit movies feel like they compliment the Lord of the Rings movies a LOT more. Heck, I always felt like something was missing even the first time I saw the first Lord of the Rings movie. Galadriel knowing Gandalf without the audience knowing anything about it, Bilbo's adventure seeing the trolls and the dragon and mountains... not to mention, we FINALLY know who Balin is so we can feel bad about him being dead and Gimli being sad about it.
You know, while I think it's awesome people love the books and it's completely fine they prefer them over the movies (because, all subjective opinions should be encouraged after all)... some people can really be jackasses about it. Like, I was in a conversation yesterday actually about the Hobbit movies on a livestream, also talking about the Lord of the Rings movies. And, one person said:
"Oh, the movies are great, but they are NOTHING compared to the books. You should read them, because they are SO good!"
I responded with that it feels rather hurtful to being told as if it's an objective fact that the 6 movies that are closest to my heart are nothing compared to the source material... especially since it's disrespectful towards all the work and effort Peter Jackson and everyone else have done on the movies, and books really aren't anything for me. I questioned why they are "nothing compared to the books". And, she said this:
"Well, a lot of things are wrong in the movies. For one thing, Azog is dead in the books."
... so, according to this person, it's "wrong" just because they changed things from the books. Which is really fucking stupid to say. Heck, what if Azog is my favorite character of the movies? Yeah, that would be a really good reason to read the books, right? 
Like... Boromir was mostly just a plot device in the book, to tell us what happens when a human gets corrupted by the Ring. In the movie, he's a sympathetic 3-dimensional character trying to struggle against what the Ring does to him, and we feel bad about him dying. Another thing they seemed to have improved is with removing Tom Bombadill... because, he apparently is just an all-powered shmuck who chooses to do nothing, and is completely pointless to the story. XP
Heck, have you seen Linkara's reviews of a Hobbit comic? He explains in those reviews how he thinks the Hobbit movies are improvements over the book, and how much he does love and enjoy them. Like, saying that it feels like it's a completely new story all of a sudden after Smaug dies, like it should be it's own movie... which is just what Peter Jackson did. And... to go back to the issues we've talked about with haters, that's strangely what they complain about. And it just makes no sense to complain about.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Though, I'm curious... have you seen the Extended Edition of Battle of the Five Armies yet?
Yes, I bought it on november 21 I believe, and watched it last weekend.
This was the first one, where I felt something was missing from the theatrical cut as well - such as Thorin's funeral - , so the EE is much appretiated. But I don't like, how they still left things off, like, I know many people hated the multiple endings to Return of the King, but I loved it, so I was hoping that the EE would be even more, well, extended. What can I say, I love my epic stories long and detailed... ^_^
With that being said, I think the EE is a worthy addition none the less to the trilogy.
not to mention, we FINALLY know who Balin is so we can feel bad about him being dead and Gimli being sad about it.
Yes, I loved things like that about this trilogy. Especially that heartbreaking foreshadowing in DOS:
yourparodies.deviantart.com/ar…
Definitly one of the scenes, where it really pays off, that the movies took their time building up the other dwarves as well... I mean really, in the book, Thorin is mean, Balin is old, Bombur is fat and Kili and Fili are young, that's it. Not exactly big on character development... Yet all the whiners talk like the movies are all action no depth, while it's kinda the other way around in this case...
You know, while I think it's awesome people love the books and it's completely fine they prefer them over the movies (because, all subjective opinions should be encouraged after all)... some people can really be jackasses about it.
Oh boy, tell me about it... Personal preference is one thing, but no need to be an ass about it... Especially, if they can't back up what they claim AT ALL.
I just watched a PJ interview the other day, and the top comment was - of course - some guy stating, that "PJ ruined the movies, I'm no purist, but even without the books, these movies are just mediocre", to which another guy said, that he disagreed, and went on to give him a list of logical arguments as to why he thinks the movies were great, to which the hater guy just said "Yeaaaaah, and the Transformers movies are better then the original show, right? Anyway, I'm out."
So basically, he claims he's not a purist, but the first example he brings up, is how a movie franchise is nothing compared to the show it was based upon, even calling the show the "original".... Riiiiiight.
Not to mention, once again, he didn't bring any arguments, when first stating his claim, that the movies are horrible. Then, when someone gave him logical counter-arguments, he just dismissed them completely, because he couldn't disproove them with his own arguments - of which he had none - , and went on raving about how another adatptation is also just shit compared to the original. Since, you know, he's not a purist, but his only thing he wrote, that even remotely resembles an argument, is about how it's absurd to think, that a movie based on a pre-existing thing can be better then the source material.
The fact, that he didn't even feel the need to explain why he thinks so just further prooves, how he is cemented in his believe, that the "original" is just better by default, because it's the original... -_-
So yeah, talking crap, then run away, when faced with logic, really classy.
"Well, a lot of things are wrong in the movies. For one thing, Azog is dead in the books."
Suuuure, because "different" equates to wrong automatically... -_-
Seriously, purist are the cancer of storytelling.
What's funny is, that I could write a couple of pages as to why I think, that letting Azog live improves the story, but you know, stating something appearently makes it automatically true, so why bother with arguments... Ugh...
Which is really fucking stupid to say.
I'm not religious, but can I get an Amen there?
Another thing they seemed to have improved is with removing Tom Bombadill... because, he apparently is just an all-powered shmuck who chooses to do nothing, and is completely pointless to the story. XP
Funny thing is, purist complained how they wanted Tom in LOTR back then, then they bitched and moaned when they added Radagast, since he was "too silly". Even though Radagast wasn't even half as silly and childish, as Tom was in LOTR. Not to mention, that Radagast was actually integrated INTO the story, as opposed to Tom, who was just there... And if you cut him out, nothing changes... But if you cut Radagast from the movies, a lot of plot points would change, so who's the useless one?
Heck, have you seen Linkara's reviews of a Hobbit comic?
One of my watchers has linked it to me a while ago, yes. Normally not a fan of those kinda videos, but he did bring up some valid points - I just wish there was less yelling, I mean we're not deaf... ^_^
Damn, I need to make some PJ Diaries and Hobbit: Purist Version parodies again...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I agree on the Extended Cut of Battle of the Five Armies, actually. 
To get to see Balin and Oin and Ori go to Moria and rule and stuff there, to see Bombur grow fatter (LOL
LOL That was a pretty funny joke you did there with Balin though. X'D But yes, indeed, that was a pretty nice and subtle forshadowing for those with keen eyes. ^_^
It's pretty ironic how delusional haters of the movies defending the book are. Because yeah, the movies made basically ALL the dwarves memorable... which is a really damn amazing feat when you think about it. I especially love the nice two moments of Bilbo being about to leave and talking to Bofur, giving him that subtle friendship with him... and, making me love Bofur. X3
It baffles me beyond reason anyone would dare compare the Hobbit movies to the Transformers movies. Though, what's funny about that is that... the show from the '80s is kinda shit. XP But either way, yeah, it feels like people are just irrational and not having any sane arguments against the movie to say. Wouldn't be so bad if not so many idiots agreed with the trilogy being shit... like, CinemaSins' videos of the second and third Hobbit movies' "Everything Wrong With" especially are mostly just about them being whiny crybabies of not wanting to watch the movies, and giving lots of absurd arguments that make little-to-no sense.
Having Azog in the Hobbit movies is awesome, yes, and I don't see at all what's wrong with retconning his death into him being alive.
Your comparison of Tom Bombadill versus Radagast with how they are integrated into their respective stories is absolutely brilliant, and really goes to show how much bullshit it is to complain about that as well. XP
Sorry about you having problems with Linkara's way of reviewing. 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I agree on the Extended Cut of Battle of the Five Armies, actually. I love it for what it is, I really do - but at the same time, I would have LOVED to get some extra closure.
Finally, someone who also loves huge endings! ^_^
Indeed, I would have liked a bit more as a farewell gift, since sadly this is the only time PJ took us to Middle-Earth.
And I'll probably won't ever see a movie again, that has the same impact on me, than these 6 movies had...
But let's be thankful for what we've got, it was a great movie none the less, and I really only had smaller complaints.
I especially love the nice two moments of Bilbo being about to leave and talking to Bofur, giving him that subtle friendship with him... and, making me love Bofur. X3
I remember, before the first movie came out, I expected Bofur to be my least favorite dwarf, or one of them at least. But then, he turned out to be one of the best ones.
"I wish you all the luck in the world", now THAT scene was beautiful. And they say the movies are all shallow and action only... Right. Guess what, that scene was a great character moment and it wasn't in the book either. Much like most of the character moments in the trilogy weren't in the books either.
It baffles me beyond reason anyone would dare compare the Hobbit movies to the Transformers movies.
I was a huge Transformers fan (mostly G1 and Beast Wars + comics) when I was a kid, and I went into the first movie not expecting much, but I was actually very preasantly surprised by it. I know they mostly get a bad rep, but I loved the first one, liked the second one, was dissapointed by the last two, althought the 4th one had some interesting ideas.
None the less, I wouldn't compare them to the Hobbit, a whole different playing field.
Though, what's funny about that is that... the show from the '80s is kinda shit. XP
I'm the first to admit, that the show isn't actually as great as I used to remember it as, but I wouldn't say it's generally bad either. Sure, it didn't age that well and many episodes were kinda lackluster, but it also gave us the basic personalities and character dynamics of some iconic characters.
Everything Wrong With" especially are mostly just about them being whiny crybabies of not wanting to watch the movies, and giving lots of absurd arguments that make little-to-no sense.
Sounds like another Nostaliga Critic...
Having Azog in the Hobbit movies is awesome, yes, and I don't see at all what's wrong with retconning his death into him being alive.
I actually think, that it's an improvement, even if you take out the badass-factor. From a merely storytelling point of view, there are a lot of arguments that could be said for Azog being alive. I was actually thinking about writing a larger blog entry of some sort on the matter.
Like, Azog is a much better figure to have around as the orc bad guy, then Bolg, because, well multiple reasons...
1) Azog = legendary orc who has brutally slain their king. Who happens to be the grandfather of the leader of our company... On the other hand, the only thing Bolg ever did in the book was getting easily murdered by Beorn. In the book, you wouldn't even know, who he was, if they didn't mention his name once...
The only thing Bolg has to his name is the fact, that his daddie was - guess who - Azog, the legendary orc, defiler of Kings.
2) Since Thorin lost his grandfather - and to some extent, his father as well - to Azog, it gives room to evolving this otherwise stale and unintersting conflict between the company and the orcs/goblins into something much more personal and interesting. It also gives it more weight, since the bad guy isn't just some Orc#316.
3) Azog was obviously a big deal in the book... And they give the honor of killing him to... Dain. So Dain is given this huge honor of avenging the king at a very young age... And here's the problem... First, if Dain is such a big shot, how come he's not trying to get back Erebor, while Thorin does? If Dain is a bigger badass, then Thorin, then why would he decline the quest? Not to mention, that since book Thorin has much less to his name then movie Thorin has - terrible leader, terrible friend, all around unpleasant guy who really, has nothing to show for it except the title of king - , it undermimes him as an authority figure even more. Which brings us to another point - in the book, it makes absolutely no sense why anyone follows Thorin.
I mean, in the movie, he prooved his mattle at a very young age by him being the one who defeated the pale orc. He turned the tide of battle. He lead them to victory. That's the whole basis for the fact, that the company has such huge respect for him... And in the book, none of this is Thorin, it's Dain... So why are people following him? It's not because he's king, because that didn't stop everyone else from letting him go alone...
And I could get into more detail, but I think you get my drift.
Your comparison of Tom Bombadill versus Radagast with how they are integrated into their respective stories is absolutely brilliant, and really goes to show how much bullshit it is to complain about that as well. XP
Yeeeah, don't even get my started on those, who call Radagast the JarJar of the movies... -_-
Well, there goes another PJ diaries I guess
Sorry about you having problems with Linkara's way of reviewing.
Well, I guess that's just native to that site. Although I have to give him credit where credit's due - he seems to research his videos much more than Doug Walker does, from what I've seen of the two.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, I am BEYOND thankful we got 6 Middle Earth movies from Peter Jackson. That is a LOT better than nothing. ^_^
Yes, there really is SO much heart in these movies. Not just with Bofur in that scene wishing Bilbo all the luck in the world... but, in the third movie when Bilbo says "Bofur, I'll see you later." he just says "Good bye, Bilbo."... and, the way it's said really is powerful to me for some reason.
I was a fan of the Transformers movies in my past... but upon rewatching the first three, I think they are shit. The third is the closest to be a "decent" one, but... that's about it. The worst offense with these movies are all the things such as the immature racism and homophobia and sexism and annoying characters and mistreatment of SO many things.
Nowadays, I just can't stand the movies... not even the slightest. And I've tried.
Yeah, the EWW videos can feel a bit overly whiny sometimes...
Those details concerning Azog and Bolg and Dain and Thorin are really interesting to know, actually. It makes me appreciate the movies even more. Heck, same with Bolg being killed by Legolas. I mean... if Beorn would have killed him instead, it would just have felt disappointing and underwhelming, leaving no impact on us.
Really, the build-up in the movies of Azog and Bolg preparing for war did nothing but help make the battle of the five armies work when it was starting. Because then it didn't come out of nowhere, and it felt like the story wasn't just building up to Smaug but ultimately also about this huge battle. It's more coherent and consistent, since... well, from what I know, Tolkien wrote the stuff he did in the book after Smaug's death because he didn't know how to finish the book, and suddenly made up new things for it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, I am BEYOND thankful we got 6 Middle Earth movies from Peter Jackson. That is a LOT better than nothing. ^_^
I asked him for one amazing Hobbit movie... He gave me three...
Yes, there really is SO much heart in these movies.
There's plenty of heart in these movies, I agree. So many great scenes to mention...
"There's no choice, Balin, not for me..."
"There is one I could call king..."
"Why Bilbo Baggins?"
"I wish you all the luck in the world"
"That's why I came back"
"I've never been so wrong, in all my life"
And so much more. All great scenes, emotional and powerful.
but upon rewatching the first three, I think they are shit. The third is the closest to be a "decent" one, but... that's about it.
Really? The 3rd one? I tought that was the worst one by far, not to mention the plot made no sense, and it had the most annoying character moments as well.
I mean, first one, what's the plan? Find Megatron and capture the Allspark, so we can build an army. Ok, makes sense.
Second? Ressurect Megatron, attack Earth, get the Matrix, take out the one guy who could potentionally beat you, get revenge and destroy your enemies using a solar system busting weapon. Make sense.
Third one? We want the matrix, but when Optimus literally offers it to Nova, he refuses for no reason at all. Then they want to rebuild cyberton using humans, even though they have the matrix, and could just create a much more efficient robot army with that... And bridging Cybertron to Earth in order to rebuild it? Don't even get me started... They also made Megatron a joke. I mean I could believe that he would work for an ancient, super powerful being, but getting his ass handed to him by Sam's annoying new girfriend? Hell no! Oh , and Ironhide dies, and Optimus doesn't give a fuck. At all.
I could write a book about this one as well, but to be frank, I would consider the first two heads and shoulders above the third one. Hell, even the 4th one was better, than the third.
the worst offense with these movies are all the things such as the immature racism and homophobia and sexism
Huh? racism and homophobia? Where was that?
Sexism, well, kinda, but even that is much more prominent in the 3rd and 4th movies. After all, Mikaela's character was potrayed to be "more than meets the eye", so also showing that she's hot isn't something I would call sexism, when they also show her having a personality, and many positive character traits, such as being brave, loyal and just all around being more than a dumb bitch (looking at you, 3rd movie girlfriend). Mikaela was at least sensible in fight scenes as well - when they hade to run and get away, she wipped off the high heals and ran like hell, while 3rd movie girl was tip-topping around in high heels during battle. Mikaela also made herself useful in battles, and she at least looked reasonably banged up and dirty while doing it - like anyone would be in that scenario. 3rd movie girl was just walking around in a flawless white dress, while her hair was blowing in the wind in slow motion, and not a piece of dirt was on her face or clothes... Not to mention she literally had no personality other then being "the hot chick". Mikaela was much more rounded as likable as a character - and I say that as someone who personally isn't attracted to Megan Fox.
Heck, same with Bolg being killed by Legolas. I mean... if Beorn would have killed him instead, it would just have felt disappointing and underwhelming, leaving no impact on us.
I kinda disagree on this one, since I was kinda hoping that Beorn would kill Bolg. Not merely because "that's how the book did it", because I felt after DOS, that they are setting Bolg and Beorn up to face off in the end.
I mean, they told us, that Azog and his orcs held Beorn captive, and they killed his family... All skinchangers. And Bolg wears huge bear hands on his shoulders... And his face looks like it was ripped off by someone with huge claws... So I thought, that they were going in the direction of Bolg's scars being a result of Beorn's escape, and that Beorn would take his revenge on Bolg for killing his family... Would have been full circle, much in the same manner as the other changes - take something from the book, expand it, set it up, explain how things went from A to B, and bang, watch the magic unfold. So I was kinda hoping, that after Tauriel got beat, Beorn would jump in and take his revenge on the orc.
Although the way they did it, was good as well. Legolas and him also had common history after the last movie, and him saving Tauriel makes sense too. Him being able to be one of the few, who could take down Bolg also made sense, since he has more experience, but all the training of Tauriel.
How they ended the battle with the same move, but with a different outcome was to my liking as well. It showed, that Bolg was all brute strength, but not really smart, since he thought that the same move would work again - but Legolas wasn't just relying on his physical abilities, so he recognised the move and quickly countered it.
Because then it didn't come out of nowhere, and it felt like the story wasn't just building up to Smaug but ultimately also about this huge battle.
I agree. Not to mention they made a great job of tying in Gandalf's sidestory to the main plot by linking the DolGuldur plotline to the battle of the five armies. Thus making Gandalf's leave an actual, well built up storypoint instead of just taking him out of the story because he was too powerful.
he didn't know how to finish the book, and suddenly made up new things for it.
Another thing I find to be quite a double-standard is the fact, that they hate on PJ for saying, that sometimes he was "winging it" on the set, but completly disregard the fact, that Tolkien did this also - when he wrote LOTR, he made everything up as he went along. Strider was originally meant to be Bilbo in disguise, for one... And while PJ was winging it, he tied pretty much everything together in the end very neatly, while in Tolkien's writing, there were often contradictions and characters and whole races just disappearing here and there... So, yeah, double standards.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"I asked him for one amazing Hobbit movie... He gave me three... "
LOL I love that Gimli reference. X3
And not forgetting when Gandalf says he chooses Bilbo because he is afraid, and Bilbo gives him courage. Lines like that makes me so confused why people call these movies soulless cash-grabbers.
... seriously, you can't spot the homophobia and sexism? First of all, Sam is a dorky unattractive guy who gets a superhot model, which is a really tiresome and overused trope... especially since we never see the opposite, unless it's a "chick flick". And then not forgetting the bullshit in the third movie of Sam's mom giving him a book called "She Comes First"... and, this is implied to be the right thing to do - man should do everything for their woman, but not vice versa.
And then with the homophobia... the two annoying autobots in the second movie making fun of one of the characters for panicking and being sad by saying "go cry to your boyfriend". I could probably think of more examples, but that example alone should suffice. And, several things of not necessarily being homophobic in specific, but randomly making fun of the idea of a guy being anything even remotely related to being a girl - like when Sam takes a pink girl's bike in the first movie to run away from his car... because, that's funny apparently.
Look, it's great if you like the Transformers movies. I'm not judging you. But please don't tell me you will defend these aspects of it... especially for me who's a gay effeminate guy myself, stuff like that in those movies certainly can be hurtful to watch and listen to.
Oh well, I can see your point with Beorn there. It was actually kinda weird to me how not even the extended cut of Battle of the Five Armies gave us much of Beorn. But... oh well. I can't say I don't love seeing Legolas in action though. Then again, I might be biased because I love Legolas and... well, I find him really cool sexy in the Hobbit movies. X'D
Though, speaking of which, I am myself trying to figure out a way to explain in-universe why Legolas has blue eyes and a more rough jawline in the Hobbit movies than in the Lord of the Rings movies. One thought I had of it was of maybe Mirkwood affecting him to look like that - and once he left those woods, he slowly turned into how he looks like in Lord of the Rings instead. I don't know, do you have your own theory on that?
Yeah, because it really feels like a load of bullshit to have Gandalf leave for unknown reasons in the Hobbit storyline when we should be told WHY he has to leave. Yet, people complain about that too, confusingly enough... even though it makes perfect sense to include.
I know! Heck, Tolkien had to freakin' REWRITE The Hobbit to fit better in with Lord of the Rings - namely the Gollum scene. At least there is no such problem with Peter Jackson's Middle Earth movies. Closest thing to that would be with the brief flashback of young Bilbo in the opening to Lord of the Rings being... noticably different for obvious reasons. I'm still trying to think of a way to justify that in my head as I watch the movies so I can enjoy them, but... I don't know. XP Maybe it's Galadriel's memory being flimsy as she tells the backstory of the Ring?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sam is a dorky unattractive guy
Well, I don't know about that... I mean I'd say he's well above average looking. Dorky maybe, but not ugly by any means.
a dorky unattractive guy who gets a superhot model, which is a really tiresome and overused trope...
Meh, I see that in this case rather as hot chick sees, that Sam may not be as goodlooking as she is, but he's a better man, than the local hot guys by far, and thus, falls far him. In the same manner, Sam's physical affection for her also turns into love, when he realises she's much more, than meets the eye. And they both grow in the process. I wouldn't call that shallow or tiresome by any means, that just shows that in the end, they both judge themself on who they are, not what they seem to be.
Not a bad message by any means.
especially since we never see the opposite, unless it's a "chick flick".
...so, we DO see it then. ^_^
That's just normal. People want to be loved, nothing wrong with that. Goodlooking people can get tired of others only being interested in their bodies, just like non-attractive people can have the desire to be loved despite of how they look like. I don't see the problem in that, if it's not just a "he gets the supermodel, because he's the main character" type of thing. That did happen in TF3, but not in the first two.
. And then not forgetting the bullshit in the third movie of Sam's mom giving him a book called "She Comes First"... and, this is implied to be the right thing to do - man should do everything for their woman, but not vice versa.
I wouldn't say it was implied to be the "right choice". More like, his mom just thinks that to be the right choice, but she wasn't exactly potrayed as being a spiritual leader, so it's not like Optimus said that. And I hardly think, that they were aiming for a serious mesage there, they were just showing that the mother isn't really confident in her son's abilities as a "ladie's man".
And then with the homophobia... the two annoying autobots in the second movie making fun of one of the characters for panicking and being sad by saying "go cry to your boyfriend"
I... think you're just seeing this there. I wouldn't say that's homophobia, more like just a general diss that most guys say. It's not even that they're implying he's gay, more like they're implying that he was screeming around like some annoying teen girl. Because it's the social norm, that "men have to be strong at all times". Which is, of course, bullshit and unfair, but that's what the world says. But that's not homophobia, just social double standards.
And again, the character who said it, wasn't exactly the "narrator's moutpiece" kind of guy. I mean those guys were supposed to act immature and not very bright, it's not like Bumblebee or Optimus said something like that. I mean, Sam called him out on getting his shit together as well, but he didn't do it with such insults, because well, he's more like the "author's voice" in the story.
I can understand, that to you, this might look like a stab at homosexuality, but really, I don't think it was. They just meant it as "don't be a whiny little bitch, and stop acting like a spoiled little girl", that's it.
but randomly making fun of the idea of a guy being anything even remotely related to being a girl - like when Sam takes a pink girl's bike in the first movie to run away from his car... because, that's funny apparently.
Well, you gotta admit, that bike looked like it was from a Barby's princess castle. And again, I don't see that as homophobic, after all, they're not implying he's gay in any way - that scene is supposed to look absurd, because it just looks off. Sam is a young dude, who is trying to step up to the usual tough guys to impress the girl he likes and to show, that he's man enough - so seeing him get on a bike like that kinda goes against his attempts, because that's the exact type of bike that most little girls would like, and most guys would not. Sure, there are exception to every rule, but the rule is still the rule.
But I don't associate that with homophobia, because I don't associate every gay person with being a stereotypical "princess in a dude's body", so when I see a girly, pink bike, I don't think about sexuality. Traditional gender roles and statistics maybe, but not sexuality.
I mean I bloody hate the color pink, but that doesn't mean I'm a homophobe, does it? Hell, my sister hates pink, and yet, she's not lesbian either. And I'm pretty sure, that one can be homosexual and still hate the color pink as well.
I think your mind just goes there, because it's closer to home for you.
especially for me who's a gay effeminate guy myself, stuff like that in those movies certainly can be hurtful to watch and listen to.
Look, I'm really not trying to be a dick here or anything, but I don't think you should be hurt by these type of things. I mean I could understand if you were pissed about what Game of Thrones did to Renly Baratheon - now that was more along the lines of homophobic thinking, or at least stereotyping gay people - , but in the TF movies, I don't think any of that was directed with any ill will towards homosexuals.
I mean I can understand why you would feel a bit weird about these things, seeing how there are so many ignorant people out there on the subject, but not everything is an attack on homosexuality, and I certainly didn't think that was the case there.
Look, I know it's probably easy to say for me - not really though, since I have my fair share of differing from the "norm" as well - , but there's nothing wrong with you in that regard, and you shouldn't feel like there is. Or think, that everyone who says something like that, thinks that there is something wrong with you. Sorry, hope that doesn't come off the wrong way.
I am myself trying to figure out a way to explain in-universe why Legolas has blue eyes and a more rough jawline in the Hobbit movies than in the Lord of the Rings movies.
I admit, that I didn't really think about it, since I know the real life explanation, and that there was no extra artistic intention behind it other than making Legolas even more other-wordly.
I know! Heck, Tolkien had to freakin' REWRITE The Hobbit to fit better in with Lord of the Rings - namely the Gollum scene
...and if the rumours are true, he intended to rewrite it even more at some point. But you know, let's just ignore that, seems to work for many people.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I mean that Sam is "unattractive" by Hollywood standards, not by my personal standards. Sorry I didn't make that clear.
Fair enough. You are right with the relationship between Sam and Mikaela, relatively. However, it's still an issue and a case of it just being conveniently not shallow, because we never get to see the opposite happening in action movies and blockbusters in general. My issue is with the gender double standard. Michael Bay throws in sexy girls for sex appeal, after all. It's more of them trying to figure out reasons to justify having supersexy model girl in the movie, and luckily found a way.
I still think you gave a good point after thinking about it from your perspective - but I would also appreciate if you could try to look at it from my perspective as well before defending it. I just hope we won't get into a fight because of this, because you really seem to be a cool openminded person, and I really do enjoy having this conversation with you.
And you still don't understand the issue I have with the homophobic remark. It was said by two of the protagonists - we are supposed to route for them and like them, and hope to see them triumph. But with them saying such a homophobic remark, it is impossible for me. So yes, when a protagonist says something homophobic and it isn't seen as a bad thing in the movie (it's seen bad with them arguing and fighting with each other a couple of scenes later, but they do NOT make it clear that ANYTHING they say in the movie is neither annoying nor bad for them to say).
I didn't say that the pink bike was a homophobic joke - hence why I tried to make it clear I was taking about making fun of a guy being anything close to girly.
Why must you automatically get in defense-mode about EVERYTHING I say about the Transformers movies and try to debunk every tiny single little piece of criticism I'm giving it? It just makes it seem like you've decided from the get-go I'm wrong instead of TRYING to see it from my perspective. Shouldn't it be portrayed as okay for a guy to wear anything pink? Please, try to see it from my perspective? Especially since I'm a guy who tends to wear pink every now and then myself. Don't think about it being homophobic in specific then, but still that it's against guys being anything remotely girly. Because that's what I tried to talk about with the bike.
But no, what you worried about coming off the wrong way didn't come off the wrong way. I actually think what you said was for the most nice and fine. Though, what you say about Game of Thrones... that's just as much of implications and depending on how you interpret it as it is with the Transformers movies if it's offensive or not. Because... well, it's mostly Renly's boyfriend being a gay stereotype. And... SOME gay guys ARE like that in real life. We also in season 4 have that bisexual guy who really isn't a stereotype at all himself.
If anything, I would rather say it's more homophobic of Game of Thrones to make the very few gay and bi male characters of the show either being mostly in the background or killed off less than a season after being given a fair amount of attention. It's kinda weird how they have TWO female characters they focus on to show the hardship of trying to be a masculine manly woman in this world, and one fat coward guy showing the hardship of being that there as well... and of course, let's not forget Tyrion showing all the struggles and hardships of being a dwarf there. Yet... not a single gay guy with proper focus to see his struggles with those things. That's kinda weird and questionable to me.
The real-life explanation of why Legolas looks like that is irrelevant to me. I only care about trying to make it make sense in-universe so it doesn't make it weird or confusing to me as I rewatch the movies.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
because we never get to see the opposite happening in action movies and blockbusters in general
I'd wager that's because mostly guys like action movies and such, so that's often told from their perspective. Much like in chick flicks it's told from the chick's perspective, so there it's the other way around. Wish fulfillment, if you will.
My issue is with the gender double standard.
That's there in most movies though, since most movies deal with modern times, and modern times are based on the current social standards. Which are of ten stupid, but they are there, none the less. I could do without most of them myself, though, I agree there.
Michael Bay throws in sexy girls for sex appeal, after all.
Oh, I'm sure he does, but why he does things doesn't nescessarily ruin or save a film, because the end effect is more about how it's executed.
I mean from what I've seen or heard about him so far, he seems likea real jackass. And I would love it, if they gave the movies to a different director altoghether, but what I'm saying is, that just because he throws in hot girls because he likes hot girls, doesn't nescessarily mean , that in the movie it has to come off as such. For example, in the third movie, that girls was only there for sex appeal, and it really showed for reasons I already mentioned in my previous post. But Mikaela came off completely different in the movie itself to me, even though the behind-the-scenes reasoning of Bay was most likely the sme in both cases.
I just hope we won't get into a fight because of this, because you really seem to be a cool openminded person, and I really do enjoy having this conversation with you.
Well Thank You for the compliment, and I would hope so as well. Especially, since through the net, some things can come off the bad way extremely easy. I'm trying to avoid that death trap though. ^_^
It was said by two of the protagonists - we are supposed to route for them and like them, and hope to see them triumph. But with them saying such a homophobic remark, it is impossible for me.
I totally get you there, and I agree, that it didn't make those two robots in particular sympathetic, but my point was, that the movie wasn't portraying them as people one should listen to anyhow, rather the opposite. I mean they were not the relatable characters for the viewer - those are Sam, Mikaela, Bumblebee and Optimus. And they never said anything like that. Matter of fact, Bumblebee was often displayed as having enough of their childish attitude overall - such as in the scene, where literally threw them the heck out of there for acting like fools. Don't forget to remember, that one of them even dissed Sam for not killing Megatron and such, and that's surely not the message the audience is supposed to get behind either.
So what I'm trying to say here, is that just because they were autobots, doesn't mean they are the ones speaking all the truth. That clearly wasn't their role in the narrative.
Also note, that none of the characters, who are supposed to be relatable and really likeable for the audience ,said anything like those two.
I mean, if Prime or Bumblebee or Sam acted like that, than I would have looked at them funny as well, but that wasn't the case as far as I can remember.
but they do NOT make it clear that ANYTHING they say in the movie is neither annoying nor bad for them to say
I would disagree there for two reasons.
One is, that I think they actually do show, that those two aren't exactly the brightest or wisest around. As said before, they were potrayed quite clearly as immature wannabe tough dudes, kinda like two average boys just hitting puberty, trying to act all tough and cool. Their behaviour was however in no way encouraged, and they were even put down for being stupid hotheads by Bumblebee.
Second reason is, that making them out to be wrong should have been done any more forced. I mean I clearly got the intent of them potraying those two in not all that positive a light, anything more, and I would have felt like they're holding my hand too much.
Why must you automatically get in defense-mode about EVERYTHING I say about the Transformers movies and try to debunk every tiny single little piece of criticism I'm giving it?
I wouldn't say I debunked every criticism, just the ones I didn't agree with. But honestly, it's not defense mode, it's just stating my opinion and explaining, why I think what I think. That's how it always is with me, because I belive that stating an opinion without adding why you think what you think makes for a poor and kind of pointless conversation. I'm sory if that comes off as "attacking you" or something of that sort, but that's just me saying what I honestly think. It's just how it works for me - Someone gives me an argument, I looked at it, analyse it, and draw my conclusions from that. Which can be either agreement or disagreement. There's really nothing more to it, I just didn't agree with those particular points you made.
It just makes it seem like you've decided from the get-go I'm wrong instead of TRYING to see it from my perspective.
One thing you should know about me, is that I never ever do that. That's the exact mindset why I hate purists. If you first make a statement, and then try to find arguments to support it, while disregarding everything, that does not support it, you're doing it all wrong and eliminate any sense any argument about the subject might have had. As an honest person and as a lover of storytelling at heart, I would never adopt that mindset. EVER.
And if you read through any of my parodies or comments, you should see that's how I always am.
Shouldn't it be portrayed as okay for a guy to wear anything pink?
It should. How it is judged will be mostly up to personal preference though, and trust me, not everyone goes "ewww, pink" because they think of it as sexually demeaning for a man. I for one just generally don't like the color, even when women wear it, and I would feel silly wearing it myself, but that's because it does not fit who I am. Doesn't mean that I think noone should wear it.
Please, try to see it from my perspective?
I'm trying to, and I think I can relate in a way, since I had my fair shair of being a black sheep amongs men in many aspects. So I can definetly understand you in that regard. I mean I really, wholeheartedly agree, that most of the social standards about the subject are bullshit, I really do.
But because I do, and I have the bad habbit of beating myself up over things like this as well, take my word for it, that you're only doing yourself a disservise, if you let the idiots get to too much, because that will lead to self-doubt, and that will lead to you looking at something, and seeing ill will towards you even when there is none.
There were times in my life, when I used to do this to an extreme, and trust me, it does not pay off for you. Which is why I'm trying to encourage you not to take these things to seriously, because then in due time, you will see malice even in words meant to do no harm.
Trust me - I have quite a few character traits, which are not deemed as manly buy society - oddly enough, having a monogamic mindset is one of them , and I know, how annonying and even enraging it can be, so it's not that I can't relate to your problem. I just think, that in these specific cases, there was no ill will meant.
but still that it's against guys being anything remotely girly. Because that's what I tried to talk about with the bike.
Keep in mind, that Sam is the main guy in these movies. The guy we're supposed to relate to, the guy who is potrayed to be the hero. And he isn't all 100% testosterone either, so with that in mind, I still don't think that these are the movies, which would want to make fun of the exact type they're having as their hero/audience-self-insert-guy.
Because... well, it's mostly Renly's boyfriend being a gay stereotype.
My problem with that specific portrayal is, that in the original, those two are written great in terms of being a gay couple. What do I mean by that? Well, Martin does not turn them into over-the-top gay characters, and the books are not in-your-face about it. As in, it's not like "yeeeeah, they're gay, got it? We have gay characters, did I mention that? Look at how progressive we are!", because I find that type of storytelling annonying. And I don't like the whole gay thing being handled by that, because I think that homo and hetersexuals should not be differentiated in that way. Because really, the only thing different about gay guys by default is that they like other guys as opposed to girls. But that does not define who they are, how they are at all. So if you're an author, and you write a gay character, and his number one most defining characteristic is, that he's gay, then you're doing it wrong. People are not defined by that. And as long as people don't get it, that we shouldn't be handled differently at all due to our sexual orientation, that long we will never have equality.
And now I hope you'll understand what I mean, and dont misunderstand me.
Also, to get back to Renly - in the original, he's not a stereotype at all and neither is Loras. Renly is badass, confident, who likes fighting and is very good at it, has many qualties that are cosidered masculine in general. So is Loras. And yet, in the show, they are nothing like that. Which isn't even the issue, because I can handle change, if it's good, but everything about them on the show is handled like typical gay stereotypes.
Like, Renly is insecure, whiny, goes around telling everyone how he hates fighting, jousting, blood, can't even handle seeing blood, etc.. Basically, he behaves like a spoiled princess. (And I'm not talking about emotional, nope, all out spoiled little princess attitude). And when they show them together, what do they do? Shaving each others chests, and handing out orals. Because that's appearently all gay people do? I'd wager that's not the case...
So I think that's a waaaaay bigger issue then what the TF movies gave us.
Another thing, that pisses me off about the show, is that in the book, Loras truly and genuinly loved Renly. And when he died, he moarned him, and didn't go around humping other guys like nothing happened. When Tyrion asked him about why he isn't interested in anyone, he said "When the sun sets, no candle can replace it". Which I think is one of the most beautiful expressions of undying love I have ever read.
So I would argue that show Renly and Loras are really just blatantly stupid stereotypes. I mean the showriters didn't even have to invent their own gay characters -they were there, and they were developed, and no stereotypes at all. And they went out of their way and made them the exact opposite.
And... SOME gay guys ARE like that in real life.
Some being the key word here, I'd say.
We also in season 4 have that bisexual guy who really isn't a stereotype at all himself.
Well, Oberin was kinda the "everything-goes-hedonistic-cool-guy" type. But with his role in the story, it would have been immensely hard to turn him into a "I can't stand violence" type of stereotype.
That's kinda weird and questionable to me.
A lot of things are weird and questionable to me about HBO's style to be honest...
The real-life explanation of why Legolas looks like that is irrelevant to me. I only care about trying to make it make sense in-universe so it doesn't make it weird or confusing to me as I rewatch the movies.
I can't really come up with anything that would make sense, I'm affraid. Elves don't really age backwords, they just.... get to their prime and stay there it seems. I mean the eyes could probably explained by saying, that his eyes turning blue is a sign of concentration and such, and that he was more chilled out, once he left the military-like Mirkwood, and became a more laid-back person, but for the rest.... No idea, really.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
By the way, I've uploaded the audio review now where I defend the Hobbit trilogy: youtu.be/v0Q4ReLtEN0
Just thought you'd want to know. ^_^
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
... you know, let's just leave it at what it is concerning the Transformers movies. I think I can see your point of view on things, but, yeah. See, I do take things too personally and I burden myself too much with these things indeed. I wish I knew how to let it go, but... I don't know how. XP
But... holy shit, I didn't know that about the Game of Thrones books. o_o; So... the show is more homophobic than the books? That's... kinda depressing.
I mean, I'm a fan of the Game of Thrones show... but, problem is, I tend to find problems with it no one else seems to find. And, people claim Game of Thrones is SOOO much better than the Hobbit movies... but I really would beg to differ. XP Though, if we're going to talk Game of Thrones - keep in mind I've only seen seasons 1-4 to date.
But oh well. Concerning Legolas, I'll go with my explanation - that Mirkwood made Legolas look more like he does in the Hobbit movies, and leaving there made him look more like he later does in Lord of the Rings. XP
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But... holy shit, I didn't know that about the Game of Thrones books. o_o; So... the show is more homophobic than the books? That's... kinda depressing.
I'd say the show is more homophobic - or rather uneducated and simpleminded - than the books, since the books aren't homophobic at all.
But damn, here I am, trying to tell you about loosening up and letting the bad feelings go, and in the end, I somehow end up making you feel depressed... XD
Alright, I guess I tried. On to the next topic.
I mean, I'm a fan of the Game of Thrones show... but, problem is, I tend to find problems with it no one else seems to find.
I like the show as well, but... that's it. I like not, don't nescessarily love it. Some aspects of it are really well done, but it suffers from the typical HBO things that I do not like.
And, people claim Game of Thrones is SOOO much better than the Hobbit movies...
What gets me is when someone says, that the Hobbit should have been done like GOT as far as adaptations go, because GOT "treats their audience with respect" and such, and here I am, like "Really?"
Is that why they changes Asha Greyjoy to Yara Greyjoy, simply because they thought that the audience couldn't possible tell Asha and Osha - two characters, who look different, sound different, are different, appear at different places with different people, etc... - apart... That must also be why almost everytime there's some fantasy backstory, there has to be some making out during it to keep the interest of the viewers, because the story itself appearently isn't good enough to keep our attention on it's own...
Don't even get me started on that 10 minute "whore's make out for no reason with each other while Littlefinger explains to some common hoes his most secret, inner feelings" scene... Not only was that riddiculous, but Littlefinger telling some nobodies those things? I'm beyond book 5, and I still know almost nothing about, what that bastard thinks, and they behave like he, the most secretive man in all of Westeros, would just tell these things to common whores for no reason?!
And I could go on, but I think you get the point.
By the way, I've uploaded the audio review now where I defend the Hobbit trilogy
Checked it out.
Very good point to bring up the Tolkien scholars in that regard, a lot of haters seem to ignore that little fact as well.
I've been thinking about writing a series of articles on the subject, but there are some things - apart from too little freetime on my hands -, that keep me from actually doing them. One, I find it quite challenging to structure the whole thing in a way, that would allow me to bring up and explain my points in the most efficient manner. Second, I kinda feel like it would be in vain, to be honest.
The people who would agree with it, probably already came to the same or at least similar conclusions. People, who hate the movies, mostly hate them for irrational reasons, so a series of logic-based articles about why thery are good would change nothing to them.
Kinda pointless to invest all that time, that it would take me to write these things, when in the end, it wouldn't affect anything or anyone.
I guess I would still write them, if I thought people, who like the movies, like these kind of posts, but I'm not too sure about that either.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
XD Well, it's not your fault, man. You're just informing me of how the Game of Thrones show altered things from the books. No worries.
I don't usually watch HBO shows, but what makes me keep watching Game of Thrones despite it's problem is because there is something addictive about it to me. XD I keep wanting to know what's going to happen next.
Funny enough, I think the worst story arc we follow in the show is the one lots of people have as their favorite - the Daenerys one. It's almost hilariously badly written to me. Not only do they depict Daenerys to have a serious case of Stockholm Syndrome with falling in love eventually with the barbarian asshole who keeps on and on raping her, but all the bad guys she has to face (her brother included) are all saturday morning cartoon level of villains.
Which is fine when it comes to Alfrid and the Master of Laketown in the Hobbit movies, because they are meant to be that and fits the mood of the movies. But Game of Thrones pretend to be more dark and adult and serious... yet, not only does Daenerys encounter these silly villains, but everything seems to go SO ridiculously well for her despite constantly being lectured. And, the actress playing Daenerys being awful at acting doesn't help much either.
Yeah, I really do hate that pointless scene two where we see two whores practice on how to have sex and make out and shit. They spend SOOO long on the lesbian softcore sex... but, with the gay softcore sex? At best, we only very very briefly see it start or end. That's it. -_- And, while we see an endless amount of naked female butts in seasons 1-4, you see 3 male butts in total. Yes, I counted. XP lol
Thanks, glad you enjoyed my video.
Well, if you ask me, I think it would be worth it for you to do, to write about it. Because the more of us daring to be that open about defending it, and trying to be friendly and not hostile towards haters (like I tried to not be in my video), the more I feel like it can slowly with time get better, and people will not bash the Hobbit movies as much anymore. Furthermore, they won't claim that most people hate them. Because let's face it - haters are mostly a loud minority online when it comes to things like the Hobbit movies.
Not to mention, it helps those of us loving the movies to feel less bad about it to know there are more like them out there. I know it surely helps me a lot. As soon as I google positive stuff with the Hobbit movies, it's almost impossible to find. Most articles and stuff are made by haters, and they can be so irrationally misinformed.
Like, now the popular topic is to say the Hobbit movies suck as much as they do because "Peter Jackson admitted he had no idea what he was doing". It's so destructive and damaging... I think the internet needs more people like you and me. But, that's just how I see it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And, while we see an endless amount of naked female butts in seasons 1-4, you see 3 male butts in total. Yes, I counted. XP lol
Well, that was plenty specific...
Well, if you ask me, I think it would be worth it for you to do, to write about it.
Maybe so, but it's just incredibly tiresome, that no matter how much logical, actual arguments you present, haters just ignore them... It's like trying to talk sense into a brick wall... -_-
and trying to be friendly and not hostile towards haters
Well, that's not an easy task for sure... Considering that logic bounces off of them like bullets bounce off of Superman... -_-
I don't tend to get personal, but honestly, being friendly towards someone who I feel does not deserve it is not something I'm likely to do either. Obviously I won't be as hostile towards them as they are towards the movies - or in some cases, even me -, but being all nice to them is a bit much to ask, if they behave like they tend to behave.
It's simply just mindboggling how overly-arrogant and ignorant those people are.
It's like you give them a dozen reasons why something makes sense, and you take your time to actually explain it, and even back up your point with examples and sources, and yet, they'll just ignore everything you just wrote and go on claiming, that "the movie is called the Hobbit, so having [insert-other-character] in there makes no sense whatever! Your arguments are weak!" and yet, they give no actual arguments, they just use degrading terms, calling CGI "stupid cartoons", calling Legolas "stupid ninja shit" and so forth...
What's the point of even trying to talk some sense into people like that?
Furthermore, they won't claim that most people hate them. Because let's face it - haters are mostly a loud minority online when it comes to things like the Hobbit movies.
That would be good, but I feel like they would still claim the same crap. Much like they make absolute statements now, like "everybody knows, that..." and all that. As I said, it's just bloody tiresome, and does not help to improove my already pretty low opinion on humanity...
These people are just hellbent on hating the movies, and nothing we can do or say will change their "minds", least of all reason and logic.
Like, now the popular topic is to say the Hobbit movies suck as much as they do because "Peter Jackson admitted he had no idea what he was doing". It's so destructive and damaging...
Yeeeees, I just got that article today from one of these "fans" in order to proove their point...
Even though if your best argument is something, that is completely taken out of context, than that's a pretty huge sign, that your argument has no legs at all...
Not to mention, it helps those of us loving the movies to feel less bad about it to know there are more like them out there.
That's kinda the one point that makes me go back to the idea of writing posts about it as well... That maybe they would ast least find some comfort in it. I don't know, maybe you're right and it would be worth it. I just feel disappointed and extremely irritated by the haters now.
I think the internet needs more people like you and me. But, that's just how I see it.
Yes, I wish people would use their brains in a rational way more often as well...
Sorry if this post comes off as overly frustrated, but I really had it with these people... Like really, all those fucking double standards and nonsense they claim, while disregarding everything not supporting their points is just... ugh... makes me sick to my stomach...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
XD I'm a butt-lover, sue me. LOL
Indeed, I know all too well about the "brick wall" issue.
And I know your frustrations all too well. I've encountered the same types of problems before - especially with Star Wars prequel haters. It drives me insane how irrationally hateful and bigoted they are, how they all jump onto the same bandwagon because of the movie/movies not being what they want. It's so weird too, because people seem to be blind to similar problems in TV shows. Imagine if The Hobbit trilogy was a TV show instead in 3-10 seasons or something? I'm more than sure people would suddenly fangasm over it and never want it to end.
But when it's a movie, they set up different standards. Any additional development or expansion is seen as "filler". Heck, people call Avengers: Age of Ultron "filler" even though a LOT of important and significant stuff happens in it. Sure, it's an "inbetween Avengers movie" with more of a status quo set up than the first had or that Infinity Wars Parts 1-2 will have, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. And again, if it was a TV show, people would suddenly be completely okay with it and even want MORE "inbetween"-stuff.
Movie developers nowadays love setting up and developing and expanding their stories into universes. Why is that so bad to people? But for whatever reason, it is. To quote King Theoden: "What can man do against such reckless hate?"
But I think that also gives us a reason to go on and not give up. Those of us who can should help inform the rest. So, after a longer period of time, the hate might tone down and those of us loving stuff like the Hobbit movies dare to be more open about it. Again, at least we can do it for the sake of others who love it.
I had a friend who LOVED the Star Wars prequels, but started to give up on caring about them because he couldn't handle all the prequel hate. And, that sadly kinda happened to me too, even though I try my best to inform people about how unfair I think the hatred is. And I don't want that to happen with the Hobbit movies.
But once again, I really truly do understand how you feel, because it is how I feel myself too about shit like this.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
especially with Star Wars prequel haters. It drives me insane how irrationally hateful and bigoted they are, how they all jump onto the same bandwagon because of the movie/movies not being what they want.
I was sure, that The Force Awakens would get rave reviews because of this, much like the Nolan movies did have an easy start because of the predecessors beind so hated - , and oh look, I wasn't wrong...
Another case, where people aren't even judging the movie itself, but are basing their judgment on some pre-existing agenda.
It's so weird too, because people seem to be blind to similar problems in TV shows.
I agree, that tv shows often have it easier, because people really seem to be much more forgiving towards them - the main reason being, that tv shows are part of their lives for a longer period of time, and therefore, they get a simliar "personal bond" with them as they do with nostalgic movies -, but even tv shows aren't immune to haters.
What I really find sad is, that wheter it's love or hate, people often feel it for all the wrong reasons, and I rarely see someone, who has an actual, honest appretiation for a tv show, that's not biased or based on something other, than the tv show itself.
Imagine if The Hobbit trilogy was a TV show instead in 3-10 seasons or something? I'm more than sure people would suddenly fangasm over it and never want it to end.
While I agree, that it would eliminate a certain fraction of haters, I do not think it would make everyone love them.
See, the problem is, that the Hobbit is just a giant bullseye for various kinds of haters.
CGI haters will obviously hate it. Purists as well. Those, who never read the books, but grew up with the LOTR trilogy and have nostalgia glasses on, would hate it as well. The sheep demographic would look it up online in order to "form an opinion", would see the online hate, and would jump on the bandwagon as well. And let's not forget the "noble" white knights fighting against the biiiig baaaaad industry, that "just wants money".... Because, you know, back when PJ did LOTR, he was "one of us"... A not very well known, small-time director from beyond the dark realm of Hollywood, and he "showed the money hungry bastards how it's done". But today, he's a well established director, so he's "one of them" now. And thus, he's now part of the biiiiig baaaaad industry and deserves to be threated as such.
Oh, and the Lucas-haters. People have been STATING, that this film would be terrible and "PJ's Phantom Menace" even before the fist promo material was presented to anyone....
There's also the factor, that is related to movies, that bring something new to the table, and than have sequels. People see the originals, and they are - rightfully- amazed by them, because they have never seen anything like them before. This was the case with Stars Wars, and this was the case with LOTR as well... So when they go to see the sequels one or three decades later, they expect to feel the same amount of amazement... And it doesn't matter, if the new stuff is just as good as the old one, they won't find the same type of euphory from it, because while it's the same league quality wise, it can't reproduce the same "never-before-seen" effect, since you already saw something like it before in the original films... Which a normal person would understand, but fanatics just take this as a personal betrayal and respond with blind hatred....
Like I said, as much as they hate to admit it, people rarely judge the art itself on it's own merits. It's an ugly truth nobody wants to admit.
Heck, people call Avengers: Age of Ultron "filler" even though a LOT of important and significant stuff happens in it.
AOU pretty much suffers from the same bias that I mentioned above. People have never seen a movie like the Avengers before, and they went to see the second one waiting for the same experience, but obvously, you can't have that a second time. Ignorance will generate haters.
Now of course, not everyone hates it for this reason - I liked the first one overall better as well -, but this is a huge part of it as well, even when noone will admit it.
But I think that also gives us a reason to go on and not give up. Those of us who can should help inform the rest. So, after a longer period of time, the hate might tone down and those of us loving stuff like the Hobbit movies dare to be more open about it. Again, at least we can do it for the sake of others who love it.
Problem is, to properly defend the movies and debunk all the hate, you would have to state some real ugly truths, and people do not want to hear those, even less admit to those. You would simply be seen as a "fanboy" grasping at straws. That brick wall is strong with them, that's for sure.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, indeed. Sure, Nolan's movies were great in comparison to Batman & Robin... but, nowadays, for a big Batman fan like me, I can't stand those movies and how insulting they feel to the source material. But people worship them... especially The Dark Knight.
Indeed. All the irrational bias and personal connections - like you said - makes it really impossible to discuss things with people. Don't even get me started on Harry Potter fans... good god. XP
Yeah, very true indeed. There are even some extreme cases like James Rolfe or Mike Michaud over at Cinemassacre, who both have this extremely irrational bias of preferring the old no matter how good the new is.
I can throw out so many examples. People bash the second 300 and Sin City movies for being too much of "fun dumb entertainment", not realizing the first movie of each of them were exactly the same. It just so happens the first Sin City and 300 were groundbreaking - both in visual style and in being so unusually accurate to their comics (probably also another reason Batman Begins and The Dark Knight got popular, because people back then were just happy if they did ANYTHING at all like in the source material).
Well, I personally love the second Avengers movie better because it has a more interesting villain and more of a status quo set up, and a perfect balance of pacing and humor and action and drama... plus, the Hulkbuster.
Though, it's unbelievable how far people will go to belittle other people's opinions. Like, some people tell me that the Star Wars prequels are "objectively bad movies"... even though that's not how objectivity works.
I believe that you have to tell the "ugly truths" in a smooth way, and friendly. It's very difficult to have the patience, and it doesn't always work. But... well, cheesy as it may be; the best way to fight hate is with love and understanding.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sure, Nolan's movies were great in comparison to Batman & Robin... but, nowadays, for a big Batman fan like me, I can't stand those movies and how insulting they feel to the source material. But people worship them... especially The Dark Knight.
Ah, yes... Nolan... That guy. The Anti-PJ.
There are some good things about his Baleman movies that I like, but there is more that I have a problem with.
Like the fact that Bale is playing himself in his regular role of arrogant, raging retard as opposed to the calm, threatening and cunning man Batman is supposed to be. He can't even seems to be able to tie his shoes without Alfred, Morgan Freeman or somebody else giving him an inspirational speech about what to do... He doesn't even become Batman through his own actions, he basically is told what to do and why to do that... There's also a whole army of plotholes and plot convienience going on, and the "realism" Nolan prides himself upon... Laughable, to be frank. It's further away from realism, than the Avengers. The last one is especially bad, and yet people act like it's some deep and perfect masterpiece... Again, they don't have much argument in favor of this, but who wants any of that logic anyhow...
Mask of the Phantasm was a much better origin story for Batman. It captured the character infinitly better and was an overall better movie in my opinion. And I could back up my opinion a lot better, than most of the nolanites ever bothered to even try... -_-
I can throw out so many examples. People bash the second 300 and Sin City movies for being too much of "fun dumb entertainment", not realizing the first movie of each of them were exactly the same.
I liked the first 300 better, because I thought it had more memorable scenes and quotes, a better lead in Leonidas, and such, but to dislike the second one for being something the first one was as well is seriously a laughable excuse... But than again, it's people, I shouldn't expect better by now...
Like, some people tell me that the Star Wars prequels are "objectively bad movies"... even though that's not how objectivity works.
Oh don't even get me started on Star Wars fans... Especially not after I watched the new one... All the bias, the double standards and just the whole sheer stupidity of it... It's just... ugh...
I believe that you have to tell the "ugly truths" in a smooth way, and friendly.
Well, how would you tell someone that they are in the "sheep/bandwagon demographic" in a friendly way, for example?
well, cheesy as it may be; the best way to fight hate is with love and understanding.
That would be a good way, but beyond a certain point, hate will just breed more hate. Even with people who weren't hateful at the start.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, I can too find good things about the Nolan Batman trilogy, but... good god, the flaws piss me off. Even more so after becoming a fan of the post-crisis comics. Bruce/Batman is such a whiny insecure gullible naive idiot in the movies, which is absolutely nothing like the overly paranoid genius detective determined to always be Batman that we see in the comics.
And yes, The Dark Knight Rises... good god, every single frame of that movie is a flaw. XP lol It's amazing how I keep finding flaws the more and more I watch it and think about it. Yet, lots of fans are fine with the dumb changes. You know, like turning Bane into a short not-so-muscular caucasian who instead of using Venom has a custom-made steampunk-themed life-supporting mask (because that is TOTALLY more realistic than using steroids).
And don't even get me started on how Joker is such an amazing Gary Stu, and... acts almost nothing like the Joker, with the exception of the pencil magic trick and his multiple-choice-backstory. But instead of being an unpredictable random murderous clown, he's a terrorist (because that's the only thing Nolan can do with Batman villains apparently) who has the specific goal of spreading anarchy and chaos... which, he is really bad at, since killing a Mayor and Commissioner and Judge really won't spread ANY anarchy at all. What the fuck?
... I will try to keep this Nolan Batman rant to a minimum, but I also hate how everyone praises Two-Face of TDK. People say he's great and cool... I say he's a whiny emo who I just wish would shut the fuck up. XP "Wueh wueh, my girlfriend died, no one understands me, wueh wueh!"
I actually agree, I like the first 300 better than the second one for similar reasons (just hoping they'll make a third to complete a trilogy, that could be pretty cool to see). But yeah. And, you know what? I love the second Sin City a lot more than the first. Especially because it made me love Marv. He was... okay-ish in the first one, but really comes across as an awesome badass and cool ally to have in the second movie.
I will actually watch the newest Star Wars today with my dad (at the time you're reading this, I most likely already have done so). Could talk more indepth about those thoughts concerning that after I've checked it out.
But yeah, so much childish immature bias. >_<
Well, that's the thing. You shouldn't tell people what they are in that regard as much as to tell them what they should avoid being. And, if you need to word it your way, the best way to go with that is to say you're not perfect yourself and can fall victim to this or that. I know it's silly you have to do it like that, but... well, that's how the human mentality works - it's easier to see your own flaws someone tells you you have if they also tell you about their flaws.
I know. We can just do the best with the situations given to us, you know? Sorry, I suck at things to say about this. XP
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And yes, The Dark Knight Rises... good god, every single frame of that movie is a flaw.
Well, I wouldn't go that far, but there's plenty of plot holes and other questionable things, that's for sure.
because that is TOTALLY more realistic than using steroids
What's also very realistic is, that in the final battle he basically smashes stonepillars with his punches like it was paper, and he also hits Batman a few times just as hard, and yet he - you know, after getting his broken spine magically fixed - barely notices it. REALISM!
And don't even get me started on how Joker is such an amazing Gary Stu, and... acts almost nothing like the Joker
While I have to agree, that a lot of things work out too convienient for him, I wouldn't say he's badly done overall or that he's nothing like the Joker. I mean, what is the joker? A crazy guy dressed as a clown, to whom violence and regular social norms are only there to be riddiculed. That's pretty much where he is here as well. I would say, that the joker is the one character the movies nailed.
which, he is really bad at, since killing a Mayor and Commissioner and Judge really won't spread ANY anarchy at all.
I would have to disagree there, since showing the city, that the people who are supposed to uphold the law and thus, order, can be easily killed and you can even get away with that, would indeed cause chaos and anarchy in the end.
but I also hate how everyone praises Two-Face of TDK. People say he's great and cool... I say he's a whiny emo who I just wish would shut the fuck up
Now-now, I wouldn't say, that what he went through was some small-time emo crap... The dude lost the woman he loved, literally got his face burned off, almost died, and everything he wanted to stand for was riddiculed in the process. Factor in the fact, that the movies set him up to have a hidden, dark side to begin with, and I think it's reasonable to say, that he would go nuts the way he did.
I think there were waaay more problems with Bane or Talia or her father as villans.
I know it's silly you have to do it like that, but...
I know, it's just that I don't like it much, as I'm a pretty straight-foward honest kinda person whenever I'm allowed to be, and constantly sugarcoating things isn't really my forte. Though I can't deny the need for it, so I guess in the end, we all have to make compromises. Would be nice if the rational guys weren't the only ones willing to make compromises though.
This sounds probably a bit pretentious, but I just don't like to lie in any aspect, at least not when it's not nescessary.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh well, fair enough.
LOL Indeed. XP The spine that was broken with a knee-kick into it... and, then cured by someone punching his spine in the same place. Yeah... go and ask an actual chiropractor how well that would work and they would slap you in the face for being insane enough to believe such bullshit. Makes me wonder why Nolan does.
And speaking of Batman fighting Bane... it took him to the second fight to think about punching him in the mask. I mean... really now, Batman? Not only did you not think about using your gadgets against him in your first fight (except useless smoke pellets), but you also couldn't use your brain to either punch him in the mask or kick his groin? Uhm... hello?
I personally call bullshit on that, being a big fan of Joker as I am. Heath Ledger's performance was perfect, yes. But the way he was written? No, he was nothing like the Joker. He just acted like a typical overly powerful psychotic terrorist who wants to spread chaos. At least Jack Nicholson's Joker was good both in performance AND how he was written.
If you love the Joker in TDK, that's fine. But... he really is nothing like ANY other version of the Joker. Nothing about him is "Joker"-like except my two mentioned things. What he is and does shouldn't be to specifically spread chaos, but to BE chaos. To do anything he can that only makes sense in his own sick demented mind. And, again, that's NOTHING like how they made him in The Dark Knight. Defend him all you want in there - but I know what I'm talking about when I say he's more or less only Joker in name and appearance and performance, not so much in his actions.
No, not really. That only spreads a bit of chaos, and no anarchy. Bane on the other hand in Rises ironically succeeded in spreading ACTUAL anarchy.
You left out the fact that Harvey Dent was so stupid he wouldn't realize Joker had set everything up. It's painfully obvious he did this to make Harvey turn rogue and show how "the White Knight of Gotham" can fall. And, almost nothing Harvey does as Two-Face makes any sense in the climax. Why would he flip a coin for him SECOND of the three he wants to shoot instead of the third?
If he had gotten the wrong coin side for him, wouldn't he then by shooting him letting James Gordon go free? And no, I'm sorry, but he's being a whiny emo. Not to mention, Two-Face is yet again nothing like Two-Face is supposed to be - because he is supposed to suffer from having a split personality. And, he shouldn't just be an intentional creation of Joker's doing - just feels insulting to do.
... well, look at me, I've just now shown you I can myself tend to get a little too passionate in defending things. XP This is why I avoided talking more with you about the Transformers movies. I don't mean to make us dislike one another.
Though, I hate lying too. I'm not saying we should have to lie. There are just different ways to tell the truth, is all.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>