Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: "The Hobbit" is not "The Phantom Menace"
  • Subject: "The Hobbit" is not "The Phantom Menace"
Subject: "The Hobbit" is not "The Phantom Menace"
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

I be trippin'.

Huffington Post article.

All of my wat. I'm not proclaiming that The Hobbit is as good as LotR, but I still really enjoyed it. I don't understand all the hate this movie is getting. Sure, there were some things I didn't like about it (The Goblin King, the stone giant scene, and overuse of CGI enemies) but overall I felt it was everything it needed to be and did the world of Middle Earth justice.

[Edited on 12.18.2012 7:15 PM PST]

  • 12.18.2012 7:14 PM PDT
Subject: "The Hobbit" is Peter Jackson's "Phantom Menace&...
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Fire for Effect. Fire and Forget.

But I've heard good things about it, so it's already untrue

  • 12.18.2012 7:15 PM PDT
Subject: "The Hobbit" is not "The Phantom Menace"

Its not getting a lot of hate, its just that the minority is louder. Also nit-pickers

  • 12.18.2012 7:15 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

We all wear masks and the time comes when we cannot remove them without removing our own skin.

I enjoyed the film.

  • 12.18.2012 7:16 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I agree. Overlong, boring, too much CGI, annoying characters, nowhere near as good as the original trilogy, made exclusively to milk a franchise...

What difference is there between this and the Phantom Menace?

  • 12.18.2012 7:16 PM PDT

Both movies were good, but The Hobbit is definitely better and shouldn't be compared to Episode I.

That's gross.

  • 12.18.2012 7:16 PM PDT

This is actually the stupidest thing ever posted on B.net:

Posted by: the omega man117
Why does everyone hate Halo 2? Maybe its because its the worst game ever next to mario.

I loved the stone giants scene. I read the books a very long time ago, but weren't the stone giants mentioned in The Hobbit? I really don't remember.

  • 12.18.2012 7:17 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: AUHSOJ NEDROM
Its not getting a lot of hate, its just that the minority is louder. Also nit-pickers


LOL no. My complaints aren't nitpicks, they're legitimate reasons on why the film is bad. And we're barely the minority now, the reaction is definitely mixed.

  • 12.18.2012 7:17 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Intrepid Legendary Member

I Love Lamp. And Ender's Game. Don't tell Lamp.

I loved it. I actually have it on DVD as a screener's copy, so I plan to watch it again soon.

  • 12.18.2012 7:18 PM PDT

I am alpha, i am omega.

I am the last of the primes.


Posted by: Forever MS

Posted by: AUHSOJ NEDROM
Its not getting a lot of hate, its just that the minority is louder. Also nit-pickers


LOL no. My complaints aren't nitpicks, they're legitimate reasons on why the film is bad. And we're barely the minority now, the reaction is definitely mixed.

Get out.

The film was epic, it wasn't perfect but it was damn near close.

  • 12.18.2012 7:19 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: ferrrari

Posted by: Forever MS

Posted by: AUHSOJ NEDROM
Its not getting a lot of hate, its just that the minority is louder. Also nit-pickers


LOL no. My complaints aren't nitpicks, they're legitimate reasons on why the film is bad. And we're barely the minority now, the reaction is definitely mixed.

Get out.

The film was epic, it wasn't perfect but it was damn near close.


Do I really have to break down again why this movie sucked?

  • 12.18.2012 7:19 PM PDT

"It's better to burn out than fade away..."

Join Sapphire for intense and pleasing sex­ual pleasure.

I absolutely loved The Hobbit, but I heard 3D was horrible, some employee at my local theater got a seizure from watching it in 3D.

  • 12.18.2012 7:20 PM PDT

From the ashes

I liked the film, and I read the book too. I thought I was going to nit-pick it more than I did.

If this part managed to entertain me, the second part will be much better; as that is where all of the interesting stuff is going to happen I wager.

I can't wait to see Beorn, Battle of the Five Armies, and Smaug (Not just his eye).

I am still confused to the third film's relevance, but we'll see I suppose.

  • 12.18.2012 7:21 PM PDT
Subject: "The Hobbit" is Peter Jackson's "Phantom Menace&...

I am a monument to all your sins

If you actually read the article you would discover that the author does NOT think that the Hobbit was the new Phantom Menace. It had flaws, but overall was very good, was basically the gist of it.

  • 12.18.2012 7:21 PM PDT
Subject: "The Hobbit" is not "The Phantom Menace"

Posted by: jjboy84

Posted by: ST0NE COLD
Posted by: What is thiss
why a murder train?Well, The Blues revolve around trains, and I'm trying to be Blues-y about it.
I think a t-rex sounds better, I mean Murder T-rex. just think about it.
This made my day.


Posted by: Super PolarBear
I loved the stone giants scene. I read the books a very long time ago, but weren't the stone giants mentioned in The Hobbit? I really don't remember.

They were, but they were just giants and it says that the group could hear them throwing rocks at each other on top of the mountain.

  • 12.18.2012 7:22 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I don't need no stinking signature!

Did you read the article? The reviewer was saying that the hobbit was not a phantom menance, he even concluded by saying anyone who liked the origional trilogy will love the hobbit.

  • 12.18.2012 7:22 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Forever MS
I agree. Overlong, boring, too much CGI, annoying characters, nowhere near as good as the original trilogy, made exclusively to milk a franchise...

What difference is there between this and the Phantom Menace?


1. The Hobbit existed before LOTR.
2. The Hobbit is written in a less serious way, with a less serious tone, than the LOTR Trilogy, hence why it seems more childish.

  • 12.18.2012 7:23 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Swagoth Ur
Did you read the article? The reviewer was saying that the hobbit was not a phantom menance, he even concluded by saying anyone who liked the origional trilogy will love the hobbit.


An obvious case of "Only reading the title and jumping to conclusions" syndrome.

  • 12.18.2012 7:23 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: ErranInfigo

Posted by: Forever MS
I agree. Overlong, boring, too much CGI, annoying characters, nowhere near as good as the original trilogy, made exclusively to milk a franchise...

What difference is there between this and the Phantom Menace?


1. The Hobbit existed before LOTR.
2. The Hobbit is written in a less serious way, with a less serious tone, than the LOTR Trilogy, hence why it seems more childish.


Doesn't excuse it from being: Overlong, boring, too much CGI, annoying characters, and made as a cheap cash grab

  • 12.18.2012 7:24 PM PDT
Subject: "The Hobbit" is Peter Jackson's "Phantom Menace&...

On Waypoint I'm rocketFox;
http://halo.xbox.com/forums/members/rocketfox/default.aspx

Old GTs; RebelRobot, Flamedude

Link bait article. Trying to stir up the fans.

  • 12.18.2012 7:25 PM PDT
Subject: "The Hobbit" is not "The Phantom Menace"

It's the law of the originals-are-better. Also known as original-is-always-better syndrome.

  • 12.18.2012 7:26 PM PDT

I actually enjoyed The Hobbit very much.

  • 12.18.2012 7:26 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

It was extremely childish compared to the other ones. Saying it is Jackson's Phantom Menace is not a ridiculous statement.

  • 12.18.2012 7:26 PM PDT

On Waypoint I'm rocketFox;
http://halo.xbox.com/forums/members/rocketfox/default.aspx

Old GTs; RebelRobot, Flamedude

Posted by: Forever MS
Posted by: ErranInfigo
Posted by: Forever MS
I agree. Overlong, boring, too much CGI, annoying characters, nowhere near as good as the original trilogy, made exclusively to milk a franchise...

What difference is there between this and the Phantom Menace?


1. The Hobbit existed before LOTR.
2. The Hobbit is written in a less serious way, with a less serious tone, than the LOTR Trilogy, hence why it seems more childish.


Doesn't excuse it from being: Overlong, boring, too much CGI, annoying characters, and made as a cheap cash grab


Opinion.

  • 12.18.2012 7:27 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Forever MS

Posted by: ErranInfigo

Posted by: Forever MS
I agree. Overlong, boring, too much CGI, annoying characters, nowhere near as good as the original trilogy, made exclusively to milk a franchise...

What difference is there between this and the Phantom Menace?


1. The Hobbit existed before LOTR.
2. The Hobbit is written in a less serious way, with a less serious tone, than the LOTR Trilogy, hence why it seems more childish.


Doesn't excuse it from being: Overlong, boring, too much CGI, annoying characters, and made as a cheap cash grab


Please, they fit the first 100 or so pages into 1 movie, the details are pretty accurate, with exception being the Pale Orc and the Rock Giant scene. If you don't like the characters, than don't bother reading the actual book; they exist there too.

  • 12.18.2012 7:27 PM PDT