View Poll Results: Dwarf

Voters
232. You may not vote on this poll
  • Thorin Oakenshield

    79 34.05%
  • Balin

    34 14.66%
  • Bifur

    4 1.72%
  • Bofur

    11 4.74%
  • Bombur

    22 9.48%
  • Dori

    2 0.86%
  • Dwalin

    27 11.64%
  • Fili

    12 5.17%
  • Kili

    29 12.50%
  • Gloin

    8 3.45%
  • Nori

    1 0.43%
  • Oin

    1 0.43%
  • Ori

    2 0.86%
Page 47 of 127 FirstFirst ...
37
45
46
47
48
49
57
97
... LastLast
  1. #921
    The Lightbringer starkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Planet Caravan
    Posts
    3,101
    Quote Originally Posted by Lefthandpath View Post
    the last time i was this disappointed in a movie, it had jar-jar binks in it. i loved the LoTR trilogy, i have no idea what this P.O.S. was. this movie was "straight to dvd" quality.

    im in awe of how bad it was.

    Bit over your head was it.
    You are lying! I never hit you! YOU ARE TEARING ME APART, LISA!

  2. #922
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasierith View Post
    Fear that humans will shoot them down, I believe it was.. which is still a flimsy excuse. But, such deus ex machina events were standard in his source material so
    I think it had to do with the evil of murkwood, but yes its mostly a plot device. Arguably any story has a quick simple solution that defeats the purpose of the tale.
    My System
    Ivy Bridge 3570k OC 4.0
    ASRock Z77 Extreme4
    Saphire 290
    Mushkin Enhanced Blackline Frostbyte DDR3 1600 8GB

  3. #923
    Moderator Kasierith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    12,594
    Quote Originally Posted by theturn View Post
    I think it had to do with the evil of murkwood, but yes its mostly a plot device. Arguably any story has a quick simple solution that defeats the purpose of the tale.
    95% of horror movies' plot hole: Don't be stupid.
    “A fool is not a person who does not know something. Rather, a fool is a person who is given information but who chooses to ignore what he is given based on how he wants things to be, rather than how things are."

    General Off-Topic Forum Moderator

  4. #924
    Brewmaster
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    'Merica
    Posts
    1,268
    Critics comparing it to the LOTR trilogy or knocking it because of the new recording style are retarded. That has nothing to do with the content of the film. The characters were well developed, and very colorful. The cinematography was as beautiful as ever. The Tolkien feel was represented very well throughout the film, including the portrayal of the Dwarves, which was dead-on accurate. After reading some bad reviews, it just seems apparent that a lot of the critics haven't read the book. Being a die-hard fan of The Hobbit, I would not see Tolkiens amazing world discolored by anyone, and that has not been done with Peter Jackson's adaptation.

    The film was a solid 9/10.

  5. #925
    Warchief
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    2,064
    Love the movie. Seen it twice already. 1st time was in HFR 3D (friends wanted to see it that way) I hated it (the 3D HFR, I loved the movie) but I knew I would because I hate 3D movies anyway and the HFR just seemed weird to me. 2nd time was with my Brother in 2D and loved it again, even more so this time because it was in my preferred "D".

  6. #926
    Pandaren Monk GeordieMagpie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    U.K,England, Newcastle
    Posts
    1,832
    10/10 Amazing! Wished it was longer so they would finish the whole thing, can't wait for the second part, absolutely brilliant movie!

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-15 at 10:09 AM ----------

    I love the fact they added the "Good morning" part from the book, really made me smile.
    Howay the lads!

  7. #927
    Mechagnome
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    668
    I wish I could see it in 2D HFR. Watched it yesterday and really enjoyed it in 3D LFR (the HFR showings were at eithre too late or too early showings for what fit with the family, same with the 2D).
    But I'm generally not a fan on 3D unless you have a true imax bowl screen. Closest to where I live is in Copenhagen, and that's across a huge bridge etc. Since frankly. On a normal cinemascreen you bloody don't notice it.

    But overall I really enjoyed the movie. Was enjoyable, made a good showing of the book.
    As for someone saying at times Bilbo didn't come of as intelligent. I would say he did, just it made a very good show of showing him nervous and afraid.

  8. #928
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuzzzie View Post
    The Hobbit was written for young adults. It's not a difficult read really. Tolkien just uses a lot of strange names for characters and places which can get confusing if you've never read it. Probably why they come with a map in the books.
    I know, which is is why that reply was about LotR, to a dude who didn't understand why someone's friend might not enjoy Tolkien's work. I even specifically mentioned LotR, not Hobbit.
    Last edited by Wilian; 2012-12-15 at 10:32 AM.
    Modern gaming apologist: I once tasted diarrhea so shit is fine.

    "People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an excercise of power, are barbarians" - George Lucas 1988

  9. #929
    I absolutely loved it and cannot wait for the rest! It is different from the Lord of the Rings, but that isn't a bad thing. It shows another side of Middle-earth. I have read the book and I still loved it. I don't mind some alterations to be honest, I love to be surprised.

  10. #930
    Not a very good movie, painfully average throughout despite the cast and the source material. It only begins to shine when Gollum enters the picture. Overall the movie was too long, the new filming technology clearly has not been nailed down yet and many of the jokes came at completely inopportune times.

    Come to think of it though, I never liked the book much either, the Lord of the Rings is a much better read (and thus far a better movie trilogy as well).

  11. #931
    Mechagnome
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    668
    Vanin, I am in the complete oposite which litterature is the better read. I find the Hobbit better in almsot every aspect besides the language used, where they are equal.

  12. #932
    Quote Originally Posted by Muzjhath View Post
    Vanin, I am in the complete oposite which litterature is the better read. I find the Hobbit better in almsot every aspect besides the language used, where they are equal.
    I would have to agree. I much preferred reading the Hobbit than Lord of the Rings (could only make myself read the Fellowship), even though Lord of the Rings has more fantasy elements than the Hobbit (ents, oliphants, etc). The reason I think this movie > LotR trilogy is because of the Dwarves. It's why I liked the book more, too. Besides, there being no Mary Sue-esque Legolas makes this so much better. And besides, Dwarves > Hobbits/Elves/Men, even though the Hobbit has a Hobbit (hence the name), and is more the story of Bilbo's adventure, but it is also the story of the Dwarves.

    Oh, and There are female Dwarves in this movie, during the part at the beginning showing how the Dwarves lost the Lonely Mountain, and they DON'T HAVE BEARDS!!! Made me smile.

  13. #933
    Fluffy Kitten Northern Goblin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Cumbria, England
    Posts
    7,028
    Absolutely brilliant film, raised a chuckle when the film ended and I thought out loud "Crap, I need to wait another year for the next one" from people around me.

    Jackson's visualisation has been absolutely stunning throughout the Middle Earth series, and the Hobbit has been visually the best one of the lot in terms of fantasy visuals. The battle scenes haven't quite been quite up to par yet, but then again we've yet to get to any of the major fights.

  14. #934
    Quote Originally Posted by Pachycrocuta View Post
    I would have to agree. I much preferred reading the Hobbit than Lord of the Rings (could only make myself read the Fellowship), even though Lord of the Rings has more fantasy elements than the Hobbit (ents, oliphants, etc). The reason I think this movie > LotR trilogy is because of the Dwarves. It's why I liked the book more, too. Besides, there being no Mary Sue-esque Legolas makes this so much better. And besides, Dwarves > Hobbits/Elves/Men, even though the Hobbit has a Hobbit (hence the name), and is more the story of Bilbo's adventure, but it is also the story of the Dwarves.

    Oh, and There are female Dwarves in this movie, during the part at the beginning showing how the Dwarves lost the Lonely Mountain, and they DON'T HAVE BEARDS!!! Made me smile.
    There are!? I completely missed them, I have to go see it again just to see the females.

  15. #935
    Stood in the Fire sinilaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    European Union
    Posts
    471
    Quote Originally Posted by Markluzz View Post
    There are!? I completely missed them, I have to go see it again just to see the females.
    Yea, I went to see the movie again today, and saw her too.. I saw only one tho, when they were running out of the gate.

  16. #936
    Think there is even a slight chance one will enjoy this movie, if one never really watched LOTR movies, or even cared for them? As inn found them booring.

    Got a chance to see it for free next week, but just feel like skipping it...yea Im a very odd nerd, dont like LOTR, starwars, Matrix or w/e classic themed films:P
    Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyX...1sT8JavyiLiMrA I do random games such as Diablo 2 and AOE 2!
    - NZXT H440 - Asus Z97 A Mobo - Corsair RM 850 - Intel5 4590 CPU - Evo TX3 coolermaster - Asus 970 Strix - 250GB SSD 850 Evo - Seagate Barracuda 1TB HDD - Windows 8.1

  17. #937
    Quote Originally Posted by vanin View Post
    Not a very good movie, painfully average throughout despite the cast and the source material. It only begins to shine when Gollum enters the picture. Overall the movie was too long, the new filming technology clearly has not been nailed down yet and many of the jokes came at completely inopportune times.

    Come to think of it though, I never liked the book much either, the Lord of the Rings is a much better read (and thus far a better movie trilogy as well).
    I actually prefer the hobbit story in the books over the lotr books. But this movie has sooo much that isn't in the books that it slows down the book material. When you have a character, Azog, who was killed in lore YEARS before the Hobbit takes place and the events of the council which takes place over 300 years before the hobbit as well slow down the film and really takes the focus off of Bilbo which is who this story is about.

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-15 at 04:05 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Nightelfsb View Post
    Think there is even a slight chance one will enjoy this movie, if one never really watched LOTR movies, or even cared for them? As inn found them booring.

    Got a chance to see it for free next week, but just feel like skipping it...yea Im a very odd nerd, dont like LOTR, starwars, Matrix or w/e classic themed films:P
    If you didn't like the LOTR trilogy or the Hobbit book then I see very little reason for you to like this film.
    My System
    Ivy Bridge 3570k OC 4.0
    ASRock Z77 Extreme4
    Saphire 290
    Mushkin Enhanced Blackline Frostbyte DDR3 1600 8GB

  18. #938
    I absolutely loved the LOTRO movies, never read the books, however for the Hobbit I did decide to read the book before going to see it in theaters. Big mistake. The movie was nothing like the book, and it was very long and drawn out with parts either left out or changed so much that they are undistinguishable from the novel. Don't get me wrong, I love lord of the rings and peter jackson as well, but the film just fell short. It was unnecessarily cheesy at times and the characters who made an appearance from the past films were just...different, it seemed like they were less epic than I remember. Also, the need for peter jackson to make the book into three films seems unnecessary as well, since this one was almost entirely about walking. I realize that these films are known for their length, and that doesn't necessarily mean that long films are bad, in fact i prefer the longer films. However I only enjoy them when they have a reason to be long, and manage to stay entertaining the whole way through.
    non bias and mmos go together like nicholas cage and good movies.

  19. #939
    Quote Originally Posted by Saycheese View Post
    The movie was nothing like the book
    I think you read the wrong book.
    Modern gaming apologist: I once tasted diarrhea so shit is fine.

    "People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an excercise of power, are barbarians" - George Lucas 1988

  20. #940
    Quote Originally Posted by theturn View Post
    I actually prefer the hobbit story in the books over the lotr books. But this movie has sooo much that isn't in the books that it slows down the book material. When you have a character, Azog, who was killed in lore YEARS before the Hobbit takes place and the events of the council which takes place over 300 years before the hobbit as well slow down the film and really takes the focus off of Bilbo which is who this story is about.
    I thought adding Azog was a bit odd at first, but I didn't really mind later on. It's nice to have someone you know of leading the orcs and goblins that attack the company. If they kept getting attacked by random packs of goblins it would be too "meh", and they're probably setting him up to be the leader of the goblin army that attacks after Smaug is defeated.

    The White Council has met quite a few times I take it, and didn't the appendices explain that what Gandalf is doing in the movie is exactly what he's doing in the book (we just don't get told about it)? As far as I know, Gandalf went to Dol Guldur to drive away the Necromancer, and his real reason behind supporting Thorin & co is to keep Smaug from hearing anything about that battle, and deny the Necromancer a chance to recruit the dragon. If so, what happens in the movie is pretty accurate.

    Or am I completely off here?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •