View Poll Results: Dwarf

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

    52 33.77%
  • Balin

    21 13.64%
  • Bifur

    4 2.60%
  • Bofur

    7 4.55%
  • Bombur

    18 11.69%
  • Dori

    1 0.65%
  • Dwalin

    16 10.39%
  • Fili

    5 3.25%
  • Kili

    19 12.34%
  • Gloin

    8 5.19%
  • Nori

    1 0.65%
  • Oin

    0 0%
  • Ori

    2 1.30%
Page 74 of 109 FirstFirst ...
24
64
72
73
74
75
76
84
... LastLast
  1. #1461
    Quote Originally Posted by Phookah View Post
    This movie was awful. Why in the hell did they have to go and ruin The Hobbit? Not to mention them splitting the book up into 3 movies (really?) It's my favorite book in the world, I read it on average on 3-4 times a year but there isn't even CLOSE to 3 movies worth of action/story.
    The whole thing just screams "I'm Peter Jackson. Now give me your money, nerds."
    Yeah, Peter Jackson obviously needs more money, that must be why he does it. >_>

    If you didn't already know, they're adding story from the appendices, explaining all the things happening at the same time as the story of the Bilbo book.
    Black sunglasses with skinny jeans, that's me
    With groovy steps, skinny red, that's me
    All my people on the web (click me)
    All my people on sites (click me)
    singin' lalalalalalala

  2. #1462
    I expected a bit more from it

  3. #1463
    Quote Originally Posted by Phookah View Post
    This movie was awful. Why in the hell did they have to go and ruin The Hobbit? Not to mention them splitting the book up into 3 movies (really?) It's my favorite book in the world, I read it on average on 3-4 times a year but there isn't even CLOSE to 3 movies worth of action/story.
    The whole thing just screams "I'm Peter Jackson. Now give me your money, nerds."
    Peter Jackson had originally intended it to be one very long film, or two shorter films. Certain companies who aim to profit from such creations decided it would be best as trilogy. Thus, it is.

    As to ruining the book, I disagree. The book's still the same as it always was and the film makes a decent stab at it. With literal classics, you can almost never have a perfect film to match the original source material. For as many people that liked the LotR trilogy, just as many derided them for not following the books perfectly. You can't win either way as a film maker. Also, that's not just a defence of Peter Jackson in particular, but for any director trying to translate a script of a screenplay of a book, into a visual medium.

  4. #1464
    Quote Originally Posted by Shinzai View Post
    For as many people that liked the LotR trilogy, just as many derided them for not following the books perfectly. You can't win either way as a film maker.
    Well, to be honest I did miss a lot of things when I first saw the LotR films.

    But once I saw the extended versions of the LotR I was very pleased. He really did fit in almost everything I missed. So I don't think you can really blame Peter Jackson, he does what he can for the fans. And I understand why he cut the battle in the Shire for example, it would make the Return of the King anti-climatic and drag on too long. But I did miss Saruman's death though... but he included that in the extended versions, perfect for me.

    Overall I'm very happy with Peter Jackson's work. Having watched the Making Of discs, I realize that Peter Jackson really has a passion for getting it right because he loves Tolkien's work. And I think most of his cast and crew are like this as well, so I'm sure that even when they change things they do it to make it better. Or at least, that's their intention.

  5. #1465
    Titan Adam Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Sarif Industries, Detroit
    Posts
    13,619
    Quote Originally Posted by Phookah View Post
    This movie was awful. Why in the hell did they have to go and ruin The Hobbit? Not to mention them splitting the book up into 3 movies (really?) It's my favorite book in the world, I read it on average on 3-4 times a year but there isn't even CLOSE to 3 movies worth of action/story.
    The whole thing just screams "I'm Peter Jackson. Now give me your money, nerds."
    The book isn't ruined. Go pick it up, it still has the same words that Tolkien set down on paper seventy years ago.

    ---------- Post added 2013-03-05 at 07:25 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Hardstyler01 View Post
    Well, to be honest I did miss a lot of things when I first saw the LotR films.

    But once I saw the extended versions of the LotR I was very pleased. He really did fit in almost everything I missed. So I don't think you can really blame Peter Jackson, he does what he can for the fans. And I understand why he cut the battle in the Shire for example, it would make the Return of the King anti-climatic and drag on too long. But I did miss Saruman's death though... but he included that in the extended versions, perfect for me.

    Overall I'm very happy with Peter Jackson's work. Having watched the Making Of discs, I realize that Peter Jackson really has a passion for getting it right because he loves Tolkien's work. And I think most of his cast and crew are like this as well, so I'm sure that even when they change things they do it to make it better. Or at least, that's their intention.
    I'm really fucking glad he cut the scouring of the shire, that would have been another 5 hours.

    If a video game developer removed tumors from players, they'd whine about nerfing their loss in weight and access to radiation powers. -Cracked.com

  6. #1466
    I really loved this movie and I think there's easily enough content for 2 more movies. I mean, the Battle of Five Armies by itself could be like half a freaking movie.
    If Goku's power level increases at the same rate till the end of DBGT as it does till the end of the Frieza saga, as a SS4 Goku would have a PL of roughly 939 Quinoctogintillion. For reference that is a 260 digit number. A PL of 14,600 is required to destroy an earth sized planet. There are about 2 nonillion earths worth of mass in the universe. That means SS4 Goku can destroy the universe about 32 Octosexagintillion times over. There's a reason they made Goku a god at the end of GT.

  7. #1467
    Warchief Northy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,050
    Quote Originally Posted by Shinzai View Post
    Peter Jackson had originally intended it to be one very long film, or two shorter films. Certain companies who aim to profit from such creations decided it would be best as trilogy. Thus, it is.

    As to ruining the book, I disagree. The book's still the same as it always was and the film makes a decent stab at it. With literal classics, you can almost never have a perfect film to match the original source material. For as many people that liked the LotR trilogy, just as many derided them for not following the books perfectly. You can't win either way as a film maker. Also, that's not just a defence of Peter Jackson in particular, but for any director trying to translate a script of a screenplay of a book, into a visual medium.
    The more time spent in Middle-Earth the better. I don't see why people get foaming at the mouth angry about it. If it were up to me it'd be 10 movies all 5 hours long. I'm a huge nerd though. The movie was great, can't wait for the extended edition and the next two movies.
    The Most Astounding Fact of the Universe


    Invisible flying spaghetti monster in the sky bless America.

  8. #1468
    Quote Originally Posted by Northy View Post
    The more time spent in Middle-Earth the better. I don't see why people get foaming at the mouth angry about it. If it were up to me it'd be 10 movies all 5 hours long. I'm a huge nerd though. The movie was great, can't wait for the extended edition and the next two movies.
    The reason people complain is as a movie it is very bloated and honestly as a LOTR fan I love the appendices and learning about the setting but they don't convert well to adding story to the Hobbit, because if you looked at it the best parts were the original book material and if they had stuck with that and maybe added in some of the necromancer stuff and kept it at two movies, it would have been much more compact and fast paced (which is good for movies like the Hobbit, the places where the pace was fast were the parts that matched the tone of the book the most and got me the most involved in it) as 2 3 hour films than 3 2 and a half hour long films.

    At the very least they could have saved a lot of that stuff such as Radagast, the stonge giants fighting, Thorin's story of how he gots his name, etc. for the extended edition. And honestly they should have cut the orc chase altogether, they weren't apart of the Hobbit story in any way and offered nothing to the movie except to let movie 1 have a figurehead bad guy since you most likely won't see Smaug till the second movie (which is another problem which was caused with bloating the movie, they had to bloat it more so the UAJ could stand-alone as an entry movie).

    I know what's done is done, I just still wish it would have been Del Toro or heck it could have been Jackson, but I just wish they kept it at 2 compact movies. Every scene or section of a movie or book or play should have purpose for the story as a whole, if it serves no purpose except to bloat the story and make it longer it shouldn't be there. There were many fragments in the Hobbit that could have easily been cut and thrown on the extended edition.

    And that honestly was really my only complaint about the movie, except it is a pretty big complaint and detracts from the movie enough for me to consider it merely good instead of great. (Because there were many fantastic moments in there, and unsurprisingly they were all moments from that were from the book, so it just makes me wonder how this could have looked if they just used the original source material, it could have been much better.)

    Longer does not always equal better, longer is fine, but there needs to be purpose to length. If there is no purpose it is just bloat and fat that does nothing but pull the film down.

  9. #1469
    Quote Originally Posted by Markluzz View Post
    The reason people complain is as a movie it is very bloated and honestly as a LOTR fan I love the appendices and learning about the setting but they don't convert well to adding story to the Hobbit, because if you looked at it the best parts were the original book material and if they had stuck with that and maybe added in some of the necromancer stuff and kept it at two movies, it would have been much more compact and fast paced (which is good for movies like the Hobbit, the places where the pace was fast were the parts that matched the tone of the book the most and got me the most involved in it) as 2 3 hour films than 3 2 and a half hour long films.

    At the very least they could have saved a lot of that stuff such as Radagast, the stonge giants fighting, Thorin's story of how he gots his name, etc. for the extended edition. And honestly they should have cut the orc chase altogether, they weren't apart of the Hobbit story in any way and offered nothing to the movie except to let movie 1 have a figurehead bad guy since you most likely won't see Smaug till the second movie (which is another problem which was caused with bloating the movie, they had to bloat it more so the UAJ could stand-alone as an entry movie).

    I know what's done is done, I just still wish it would have been Del Toro or heck it could have been Jackson, but I just wish they kept it at 2 compact movies. Every scene or section of a movie or book or play should have purpose for the story as a whole, if it serves no purpose except to bloat the story and make it longer it shouldn't be there. There were many fragments in the Hobbit that could have easily been cut and thrown on the extended edition.

    And that honestly was really my only complaint about the movie, except it is a pretty big complaint and detracts from the movie enough for me to consider it merely good instead of great. (Because there were many fantastic moments in there, and unsurprisingly they were all moments from that were from the book, so it just makes me wonder how this could have looked if they just used the original source material, it could have been much better.)

    Longer does not always equal better, longer is fine, but there needs to be purpose to length. If there is no purpose it is just bloat and fat that does nothing but pull the film down.
    I believe they put in Azog to build up a character that acts out the villain part throughout the three movies, instead of having pretty much no one in the first movie (they deal with the Goblin King very quickly, both in the book/movie), then Smaug and then Bolg. I'm sure they'll add him in somewhere in the second, probably showing his connection to the Necromancer, building up Sauron's Return. For the third movie I see 3 options: Have him replace Bolg, have him with Bolg or have him killed off (in 2nd or 3rd) with Bolg there to avenge him. And the part with Thorin's name adds to the whole Azog thing going on, and overall it was just a very nice scene. I for one really liked that they didn't really show off Smaug in this movie, showing off his full size will have a bigger impact when they actually encounter him.

    If they didn't add anything from the appendices, it would've been two rather shallow movies, as while The Hobbit was a great book, it was still a children's book without any deep lore being explained throughout of it. If we saw a movie version of the book instead of an adaption, we would sit there and wonder where the hell Gandalf went off to all the time. Suddenly having such a big character drop out of the movies would just suck. Just as with Frodo's journey, there's something bigger going on than Bilbo going off on a journey to get some dwarven gold, and with the way Jackson decided to do things, they explain all of that. I don't think the movie was bloated at all, and the only thing that makes LotR better (for me personally) is that they're more serious. But of course I knew beforehand that The Hobbit would be more childish.

    Also, the stone giants were in the book. D:
    Black sunglasses with skinny jeans, that's me
    With groovy steps, skinny red, that's me
    All my people on the web (click me)
    All my people on sites (click me)
    singin' lalalalalalala

  10. #1470
    Old God Arrowstormen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    10,004
    When The Hobbit was announced as a three-parter, I knew what my favorite movie of the year would be in the next three years.
    Belief can become reality!

  11. #1471
    Titan Adam Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Sarif Industries, Detroit
    Posts
    13,619
    Quote Originally Posted by Badhairday View Post
    Also, the stone giants were in the book. D:
    Yeah, it was interesting watching the movie and seeing that scene and realizing "actually, that was in the book!"

    If a video game developer removed tumors from players, they'd whine about nerfing their loss in weight and access to radiation powers. -Cracked.com

  12. #1472
    Quote Originally Posted by Arrowstorm View Post
    When The Hobbit was announced as a three-parter, I knew what my favorite movie of the year would be in the next three years.
    Yea.. so true I like Hobbit a lot better than I liked LotR, when it came out. But I think it's mostly because I was too young then and only understood the movies much later. They also seemed a lot shorter then.

    The only sad part is that there are no more books to base trilogies on Unless they start making up stuff or base movies on the reference book that Tolkien wrote (which is basically the same thing), we won't be seeing any more trilogies

  13. #1473
    they dragged this movie soo much only thing they didn't include is 30 mins of them going to pooper.

  14. #1474
    Quote Originally Posted by Lizbeth View Post
    The only sad part is that there are no more books to base trilogies on Unless they start making up stuff or base movies on the reference book that Tolkien wrote (which is basically the same thing), we won't be seeing any more trilogies
    They could easily make a trilogy+ based on some of the various stories in the Silmarillion. It's not really a reference book, it's got a number of actual stories. They just read more like the Bible than a novel.

  15. #1475
    Quote Originally Posted by Matheren View Post
    They could easily make a trilogy+ based on some of the various stories in the Silmarillion. It's not really a reference book, it's got a number of actual stories. They just read more like the Bible than a novel.
    The Tolkien family didn't like LotR, so getting the rights for making a Silmarillion movie would probably take a long, long time. Personally, I'd love to see Ungoliant on the big screen.
    Black sunglasses with skinny jeans, that's me
    With groovy steps, skinny red, that's me
    All my people on the web (click me)
    All my people on sites (click me)
    singin' lalalalalalala

  16. #1476
    Quote Originally Posted by Badhairday View Post
    The Tolkien family didn't like LotR, so getting the rights for making a Silmarillion movie would probably take a long, long time. Personally, I'd love to see Ungoliant on the big screen.
    The Tolkien family is pissed at getting worked over financially by New Line and are using their franchise rights as bargaining chips. Meaning they are putting out this whole charade about how they hate what PJ did with the movies and withholding future rights because of it.

    So how do I know it's all a charade, you ask?

    Pick up a copy of the 1977 Rankin Bass "The Hobbit" and the 1978, Ralph Bakshi directed, "The Lord of the Rings" full feature film for comparison. Both of those were pretty awful, though the kids enjoyed them. The Goblins looked like giant bloated toads and the elves looked like goblins. In talking about his adaptation, Ralph Bakshi even mentions, ""It's not that important to me how a hobbit looks".

    I would contend if there was any time for the Tolkien family to be righteously indigent over the adaptation of JRR's work, it would have been in 1978 - however they were not only perfectly fine with what happened, they gave rights for the final movie to Bakshi and worked on making a TV serial with him.

  17. #1477
    Oh, I see. Does make sense, the animated adaptions for them 70s were indeed pretty awful. IIRC some of the songs in the movie aren't even in the book (hobbit), they're just made up on the spot. I did like the VAs for some characters, though. Anyway, thanks for correcting me. I got linked some site with some article about how the Tolkien family didn't like PJ's adaption, and being quite gullible I thought it was the truth.
    Black sunglasses with skinny jeans, that's me
    With groovy steps, skinny red, that's me
    All my people on the web (click me)
    All my people on sites (click me)
    singin' lalalalalalala

  18. #1478
    Quote Originally Posted by Ragedaug View Post
    The Tolkien family is pissed at getting worked over financially by New Line and are using their franchise rights as bargaining chips. Meaning they are putting out this whole charade about how they hate what PJ did with the movies and withholding future rights because of it.

    So how do I know it's all a charade, you ask?

    Pick up a copy of the 1977 Rankin Bass "The Hobbit" and the 1978, Ralph Bakshi directed, "The Lord of the Rings" full feature film for comparison. Both of those were pretty awful, though the kids enjoyed them. The Goblins looked like giant bloated toads and the elves looked like goblins. In talking about his adaptation, Ralph Bakshi even mentions, ""It's not that important to me how a hobbit looks".

    I would contend if there was any time for the Tolkien family to be righteously indigent over the adaptation of JRR's work, it would have been in 1978 - however they were not only perfectly fine with what happened, they gave rights for the final movie to Bakshi and worked on making a TV serial with him.
    What?? The Rankin Bass "The Hobbit" was great. It's actually what made me want to read The Hobbit in the first place when I was a kid. Plus it is extremely faithful to the book.

  19. #1479
    Quote Originally Posted by Arlee View Post
    What?? The Rankin Bass "The Hobbit" was great. It's actually what made me want to read The Hobbit in the first place when I was a kid. Plus it is extremely faithful to the book.
    =) I like it. As a matter of fact I still watch it, though my kids roll their eyes at me when I ask them now if they'll watch it with me. It's a fun kids movie (thought very dated). My point was not the fact that people didn't enjoy it - The LotR cartoon even won hollywood accolade - the point was to draw the comparison between PJs work and how the Tolkien family is now bashing his stuff as unfaithful and ruining JRRT's legacy, while completely ignoring the fact that you could say the same things and more about the previous movie-cartoons and again, they don't seem to mind those at all. (which I think is fine, I just wish they would lay off PJ)

  20. #1480
    Quote Originally Posted by Ragedaug View Post
    =) I like it. As a matter of fact I still watch it, though my kids roll their eyes at me when I ask them now if they'll watch it with me. It's a fun kids movie (thought very dated). My point was not the fact that people didn't enjoy it - The LotR cartoon even won hollywood accolade - the point was to draw the comparison between PJs work and how the Tolkien family is now bashing his stuff as unfaithful and ruining JRRT's legacy, while completely ignoring the fact that you could say the same things and more about the previous movie-cartoons and again, they don't seem to mind those at all. (which I think is fine, I just wish they would lay off PJ)
    Oh ok, that makes sense

Posting Permissions

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