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"
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: flamedude
Posted by: Forever MS
>Implying I haven't read the book
>Implying everything you said isn't an opinion too
>Implying that you aren't getting upset about my opposing opinion

Seriously, you sound like you're 5. Why are you so upset that not every single person in the world liked the Hobbit film?


Wait. You said that you hadn't read the book. Did I imagine that?

I am totally cool with people having opinions, good on them, but you seem quite intent on telling us again and again and again. How many threads have you created about how you disliked The Hobbit that were met with almost universal dislike? I've seen two.

We all get it. You don't like it. Stop flogging a dead horse.


I posted two threads, and then I went on a thread concerning the matter (this one) and agreed with it. Stop getting so upset child.

  • 12.18.2012 7:42 PM PDT


Posted by: JMcDon15
They went overboard though.

The Lord of the Rings movies had a much more serious tone than the books did and cut out most of the silliness. The Hobbit did not and when you're comparing movies, it's hard to accept that these are supposed to be in the same series, much like the Star Wars movies.


Overboard? The tone IS suppose to be completely different. LoTR was serious because it was about the War of the Ring and that all of Middle Earth was at stake against an evil foe. The Hobbit it more of a goofy, lighthearted journey with a group of Dwarves. The book itself is written in a much more light and airy way, unlike the darker and more serious tone of the LoTR series.

  • 12.18.2012 7:45 PM PDT

Brainwashing, idiotic media: "hur dur, vido gaems cas vilenc n iz nt gud. dey ned 2 b baned."

Logic: Really? Then please explain how there's violence in third world countries. I guess they're all poor due to the large amount of video games they buy.


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?


You're just as annoying as omg a banana with his Halo 4 hate.

- The CGI was well done.

- The characters were unique in their own way with the twins being a good remembrance of Mary and Pippin.

- The Hobbit was written before (?) LOTR and it was intended to be not so serious and the movie actually describes the dwarves better than the book

- It was made to explore and give a more in-depth look at the universe and lore of Middle-Earth. It's been years since we had a movie in this setting and it was one of Jackson's best pieces of work.

Wait a minute, didn't you make a post about how the film was "bad" yet didn't even read the book to support your complaints?

  • 12.18.2012 7:46 PM PDT

-blam!- Was that actually blammed out? Or did I just type it? You'll never know.

Posted by: BlazingAngel94
Wait a minute, didn't you make a post about how the film was "bad" yet didn't even read the book to support your complaints?
The main problems with the Hobbit, and this has been said again, and again, have nothing to do with the book. Someone could walk in to the movie having no idea what the Tolkienverse was and pick out the general problems.

  • 12.18.2012 7:49 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: dahuterschuter
Posted by: BlazingAngel94
Wait a minute, didn't you make a post about how the film was "bad" yet didn't even read the book to support your complaints?
The main problems with the Hobbit, and this has been said again, and again, have nothing to do with the book. Someone could walk in to the movie having no idea what the Tolkienverse was and pick out the general problems.


Thank you. I'm amused for the following reasons:

*People are saying just because some scenes were in a book, it's alright to adapt on film

*People ignoring all of my other complaints concerning CGI, characters, overlong, etc.

  • 12.18.2012 7:50 PM PDT

Posted by: Kurosaki_Kun

I know, right?
Jay acts like she's better than everyone else simply because she's a chick.
I hope she chokes to death.

People are seriously giving this movie bad reviews?

I went to the midnight screening with my boyfriend and a few friends. We showed up three hours early and only just managed to be first in line. It was worth the wait. Movie of the year, IMO.

  • 12.18.2012 7:52 PM PDT

"Why concentrate on the negative when we can speak of the positive?"
My File Share
Try using the Search Bar next time.
Halo 2 was the best Halo game
A7x FoREVer!

Its in the same series as a movie franchise that is labeled as "God-like" by fans and critics. True facts of reality is the movie was great, but since it wasn't the best movie of all-time its getting nitpicked apart by everyone.

If the Lord of the Rings (movies) did not exist, the Hobbit would be received better then the Fellowship of the Ring. However, as I said before its following in the Lord of the Rings footsteps.

  • 12.18.2012 7:52 PM PDT

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

Old GTs; RebelRobot, Flamedude

Posted by: dahuterschuter
Posted by: BlazingAngel94
Wait a minute, didn't you make a post about how the film was "bad" yet didn't even read the book to support your complaints?
The main problems with the Hobbit, and this has been said again, and again, have nothing to do with the book. Someone could walk in to the movie having no idea what the Tolkienverse was and pick out the general problems.


Could you point anything out for us? Just curious.

  • 12.18.2012 7:52 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Noshotskill
Its in the same series as a movie franchise that is labeled as "God-like" by fans and critics. True facts of reality is the movie was great, but since it wasn't the best movie of all-time its getting nitpicked apart by everyone.

If the Lord of the Rings (movies) did not exist, the Hobbit would be received better then the Fellowship of the Ring. However, as I said before its following in the Lord of the Rings footsteps.


Oh look, another person ignoring the fact that most complaints for this movie are legitimate technical reasons, not because of the actual story itself.

  • 12.18.2012 7:53 PM PDT

Brainwashing, idiotic media: "hur dur, vido gaems cas vilenc n iz nt gud. dey ned 2 b baned."

Logic: Really? Then please explain how there's violence in third world countries. I guess they're all poor due to the large amount of video games they buy.


Posted by: dahuterschuter
Posted by: BlazingAngel94
Wait a minute, didn't you make a post about how the film was "bad" yet didn't even read the book to support your complaints?
The main problems with the Hobbit, and this has been said again, and again, have nothing to do with the book. Someone could walk in to the movie having no idea what the Tolkienverse was and pick out the general problems.


That's the problem right there, if a person was gonna go see a movie or play a game and have no idea what the universe is about, they shouldn't have room to give a negative opinion on it.

A few years ago, I wanted to play AC: Brotherhood. Since I never played the first two, I went on the computer and read up on the story and lore of the games and AC universe.

  • 12.18.2012 7:53 PM PDT


Posted by: Noshotskill
Its in the same series as a movie franchise that is labeled as "God-like" by fans and critics. True facts of reality is the movie was great, but since it wasn't the best movie of all-time its getting nitpicked apart by everyone.

If the Lord of the Rings (movies) did not exist, the Hobbit would be received better then the Fellowship of the Ring. However, as I said before its following in the Lord of the Rings footsteps.

This is why people are nit-picking. Thank you Noshotskill.

  • 12.18.2012 7:54 PM PDT

Xbox LIVE gamertag: Dat3lessNutella
Steam username: TopWargamer
To look up my Halo stats...search for the gamertag TopWargamer.
SAVED THREAD PAGES: 283
One does not simply get rid of TopWargamer so easily.
You know this to be true.
ALL HAIL GABEN


Posted by: Buddha Milk
I enjoyed the film.

  • 12.18.2012 7:55 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.

Posted by: Forever MS
I like how you bumped your old thread and got no replies at all, lol.

Stop being so mad over a film.

  • 12.18.2012 7:58 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: aTALLmidget

Posted by: JMcDon15
They went overboard though.

The Lord of the Rings movies had a much more serious tone than the books did and cut out most of the silliness. The Hobbit did not and when you're comparing movies, it's hard to accept that these are supposed to be in the same series, much like the Star Wars movies.


Overboard? The tone IS suppose to be completely different. LoTR was serious because it was about the War of the Ring and that all of Middle Earth was at stake against an evil foe. The Hobbit it more of a goofy, lighthearted journey with a group of Dwarves. The book itself is written in a much more light and airy way, unlike the darker and more serious tone of the LoTR series.

I don't care if it was supposed to have a goofy, lighthearted tone.

I watched, and very much enjoyed the Lord of the Rings trilogy, which had a very serious tone. And now I'm watching this which I'm supposed to accept is in the same universe, which is completely different than the previous movies.

Like I said I don't care if it was supposed to be goofy and lighthearted. I personally think that was a piss-poor decision and compared to the Lord of the Rings movies, it just seems stupid.

If this was the first movie they made, I would have probably enjoyed it alot more. But compared to the other three, it sucks.

  • 12.18.2012 7:58 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Super PolarBear
Posted by: Forever MS
I like how you bumped your old thread and got no replies at all, lol.

Stop being so mad over a film.


>Implying replying to a post a couple hours ago is "Bumping"
>Implying that there aren't a bunch of people in this thread raging about my opinions on this movie.

  • 12.18.2012 8:00 PM PDT

Of course The Hobbit's not The Phantom Menace. They're 2 different movies.

  • 12.18.2012 8:01 PM PDT

Pure Insanity
The point of war is not to die for one's clan, but it's to make the other bastard die for his
Right before you die, there is always a chance to save yourself, sieze that chance and live to fight another day
The best way to kill someone is to fight them with the same weapons they use and make them know you are better than them, not because of superior weaponry, but because of superior skill.
Hidden in the shadows, Clothed in camo, Armed to the teeth. Hunting.

I couldn't care less what anyone else says, I feel that The Hobbit is even better than LotR, which is hard to do. At the very least, it was just a tiny bit less.

They did a great job, and I'm sure the rest will be just as good/better.

It certainly does not deserve some of the hate it has gotten.

  • 12.18.2012 8:06 PM PDT

-blam!- Was that actually blammed out? Or did I just type it? You'll never know.

Posted by: flamedude
Could you point anything out for us? Just curious.
Tension and drama of action sequences killed by CGI: It was painfully clear that when they swung their weapons they were swinging at nothing. The goofy looking orcs and trolls were completely unconvincing. The heaviness of the CGI reminded me of the recent Marvel movies, Thor in particular. While it can still be entertaining, it gives up any investment in the scene.

It's inarguable that it would have been better from a filming and a dramatic standpoint to have extras in costume for the orcs. Of course, you can say that the point of the CGI was for it to be more cartoony since it was supposed to have a lighter tone. That's all well and good, but it doesn't change what it does to the movie as far as investment.

There's a nice line from Plinkett to explain the lack of tension, it's because of how easily you pick out what's fake on the screen. "You didn't notice, but your brain did."

Lack of focus, obvious filler to create enough run time for three movies: You can squeeze these two into one category because the latter causes the former. Azog was unnecessary and only bogged down the plot, as did Radaghast. Some would probably try to argue that the Shire intro, the Necromancer, and the White Council were harmful to it as well, and I suppose they were. I also recognize though that they were trying to unify the two trilogies with those, which doesn't seem like a bad idea.

What was the central conflict of the movie? The central conflict of the trilogy will be the company versus Smaug in regaining their home. But for this story that was told in this movie, what was the central conflict? Was it Thorin vs Azog? The Wizards vs the Necromancer? Gandalf vs Sauron? Bilbo vs Gollum? The Company vs the Orcs? The fact that all these questions have to be asked as to what the actual main agon of the story was shows how unfocused it was.

Bad character development: There are no relatable characters, and every character is flat but for Bilbo and Thorin, and their characters arcs came out more like character spikes.

Bilbo's problem - You don't get to know Bilbo at all. All that you get to know about him is that he's huffy. That's his character, and it stays that way until finally he charges into harms way to save Thorin. He stayed his neurotic self the entire way through though, there was no development, there was a flatline and then a spike at one point at the end.

He's also barely even distinguishable as a protagonist. The central conflict of the movie is, well it hardly has one as said earlier. He can barely be established as a protagonist because there's no clear conflict for him in this story.

Thorin - So does that mean Thorin is actually our protagonist despite it seeming to center around Bilbo? It seems to spend just as much, or even more time on Thorin than it does Bilbo. But then he suffers the same problem for setting him up as a protagonist.

Hes also, like Bilbo, flat until one point of change. He remains cold towards the hobbit entirely until one singular instance of change.

Not to mention the fact that simply having main characters that are foreign to the audience on its own is a way to guarantee difficulty in relating to them.

All that said, I still loved the movie. It just has problems that cant be ignored, or can. I ignored them until I decided to think critically about it, but then its not something you're really supposed to think critically about. It's a fun popcorn flick like Avengers was, and that's it. No cinematic masterpiece.

  • 12.18.2012 8:17 PM PDT

Key


Posted by: BlazingAngel94

Posted by: dahuterschuter
Posted by: BlazingAngel94
Wait a minute, didn't you make a post about how the film was "bad" yet didn't even read the book to support your complaints?
The main problems with the Hobbit, and this has been said again, and again, have nothing to do with the book. Someone could walk in to the movie having no idea what the Tolkienverse was and pick out the general problems.


That's the problem right there, if a person was gonna go see a movie or play a game and have no idea what the universe is about, they shouldn't have room to give a negative opinion on it.

A few years ago, I wanted to play AC: Brotherhood. Since I never played the first two, I went on the computer and read up on the story and lore of the games and AC universe.
It's that movie's job to provide enough exposition so that someone can actually follow it without having read up on the Universe. If this were Hobbit 2 and people were complaining because they hadn't seen Hobbit 1 and were confused, I'd be with you. But, alas, it is not and so I am not.

  • 12.18.2012 9:07 PM PDT

The Snow Leopard's wisdom includes: Understanding one's shadow-side; trusting one's inner-self; agility; strength; the ability to stalk; understanding the power of silence.

The Phantom Menace was the only great StarWars film.

  • 12.18.2012 9:08 PM PDT


Posted by: JMcDon15
Posted by: aTALLmidget

Posted by: JMcDon15
They went overboard though.

The Lord of the Rings movies had a much more serious tone than the books did and cut out most of the silliness. The Hobbit did not and when you're comparing movies, it's hard to accept that these are supposed to be in the same series, much like the Star Wars movies.


Overboard? The tone IS suppose to be completely different. LoTR was serious because it was about the War of the Ring and that all of Middle Earth was at stake against an evil foe. The Hobbit it more of a goofy, lighthearted journey with a group of Dwarves. The book itself is written in a much more light and airy way, unlike the darker and more serious tone of the LoTR series.

I don't care if it was supposed to have a goofy, lighthearted tone.

I watched, and very much enjoyed the Lord of the Rings trilogy, which had a very serious tone. And now I'm watching this which I'm supposed to accept is in the same universe, which is completely different than the previous movies.

Like I said I don't care if it was supposed to be goofy and lighthearted. I personally think that was a piss-poor decision and compared to the Lord of the Rings movies, it just seems stupid.

If this was the first movie they made, I would have probably enjoyed it alot more. But compared to the other three, it sucks.


Alright, so you don't care that they're following how the books were written? How Tolkien intended it?

If that's all that you really have for you is "I don't care how it's suppose to be, it's stupid and I don't like it!" I don't have much to say . It's your opinion, albeit IMO (lol) not a well thought out one. Though you could look forward to the next Hobbit films as things became more serious when the adventure continues, and by the end it ought to have more of a serious tone.

  • 12.18.2012 9:11 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: aTALLmidget

Posted by: JMcDon15
Posted by: aTALLmidget

Posted by: JMcDon15
They went overboard though.

The Lord of the Rings movies had a much more serious tone than the books did and cut out most of the silliness. The Hobbit did not and when you're comparing movies, it's hard to accept that these are supposed to be in the same series, much like the Star Wars movies.


Overboard? The tone IS suppose to be completely different. LoTR was serious because it was about the War of the Ring and that all of Middle Earth was at stake against an evil foe. The Hobbit it more of a goofy, lighthearted journey with a group of Dwarves. The book itself is written in a much more light and airy way, unlike the darker and more serious tone of the LoTR series.

I don't care if it was supposed to have a goofy, lighthearted tone.

I watched, and very much enjoyed the Lord of the Rings trilogy, which had a very serious tone. And now I'm watching this which I'm supposed to accept is in the same universe, which is completely different than the previous movies.

Like I said I don't care if it was supposed to be goofy and lighthearted. I personally think that was a piss-poor decision and compared to the Lord of the Rings movies, it just seems stupid.

If this was the first movie they made, I would have probably enjoyed it alot more. But compared to the other three, it sucks.


Alright, so you don't care that they're following how the books were written? How Tolkien intended it?

If that's all that you really have for you is "I don't care how it's suppose to be, it's stupid and I don't like it!" I don't have much to say . It's your opinion, albeit IMO (lol) not a well thought out one. Though you could look forward to the next Hobbit films as things became more serious when the adventure continues, and by the end it ought to have more of a serious tone.

Not when the cinematic universe is already crafted to be serious and mature.

Like I said before, the Lord of the Rings movies cut out alot of the silliness that existed in the books. The Hobbit did not, and as a result the Hobbit seems completely different than the Lord of the Rings in which its supposed to take place in the same universe as.

I'll use an example. Trolls in Lord of the Rings are these giant, terrifying monsters that are used by Sauron. In the Hobbit, trolls are giant monsters that make stew and have allergy problems and turn to stone in sunlight (wtf?).

Now I realize this makes sense if you read the books but in the cinematic universe, it's never established that these are different kinds of trolls and it seems very contradictory to the previous movies.

As I said in the other thread, reading the book shouldn't be a requirement to enjoy the film.

  • 12.18.2012 9:38 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Veteran Heroic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

"Better a little which is well done, than a great deal imperfectly." - Plato

I didn't care for the film, personally, but I enjoyed it as a book.

  • 12.18.2012 9:46 PM PDT
Subject: "The Hobbit" is Peter Jackson's "Phantom Menace&...

How can anyone complain about The Hobbit or LotR for being overlong?!?! The longer the movie, the happier I am! CGI may have been a little overused in The Hobbit, but in no way did it take away from the movie itself. I just think the hate is ridiculous, especially when a movie of this quality is so rare these days.

  • 12.18.2012 9:55 PM PDT
Subject: "The Hobbit" is not "The Phantom Menace"


Posted by: JMcDon15
Not when the cinematic universe is already crafted to be serious and mature.

Like I said before, the Lord of the Rings movies cut out alot of the silliness that existed in the books. The Hobbit did not, and as a result the Hobbit seems completely different than the Lord of the Rings in which its supposed to take place in the same universe as.

I'll use an example. Trolls in Lord of the Rings are these giant, terrifying monsters that are used by Sauron. In the Hobbit, trolls are giant monsters that make stew and have allergy problems and turn to stone in sunlight (wtf?).

Now I realize this makes sense if you read the books but in the cinematic universe, it's never established that these are different kinds of trolls and it seems very contradictory to the previous movies.

As I said in the other thread, reading the book shouldn't be a requirement to enjoy the film.


It's just how it is. The cinematic universe doesn't exactly mandate how to make movies. I mean, take the Evil Dead series, the first two movies were dark and grim, but the third, Army of Darkness, was a straight up comedy.

The LoTR books didn't have any real sillyness. The most they cut out of them were events (the movies would be a LOT longer had they covered everything) and they made the dialogue a bit more modern (and thankfully so, a lot of the dialogue Tolkien had was a bit too Shakespeare sounding).

Here's the difference between the trolls you talk about though: In The Hobbit, the trolls are regular, large, feeble minded beasts. The reason they're different in LoTR is because Sauron specifically bred them to be fierce and cruel, as well as probably a bit more intelligent AND to not turn to stone in the sunlight. Otherwise, they would.

Though I suppose it doesn't help as that's in the books... Yet in the LoTR series, if you catch on, it's mentioned Saruman and Sauron were breeding armies anyway.

  • 12.18.2012 9:57 PM PDT