Movie Talk (New Films, Old Films... doesn't matter) (37 Viewers)

[Völler]

Both Hobbit and LOTR are awesome. Sorry bro.

LOTR movies are amazing, The Hobbit a big disappointment.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Ocelot]

The only critique I have about The Hobbit is that they took a childrens book and made three movies, when one would be more than enough.

I can understand two movies if they're expanding on the Dol Guldur stuff (which happens 99% "off-screen" in the book and only gets mentioned in like two sentences), but three is just unnecessary, and is probably what got us all the useless and unlogical subplots like this fucking elven dwarf love story.

 

[Hængebøffer]

LOTR movies are amazing, The Hobbit a big disappointment.

Jesus. There's a minimal difference.

 

[Ocelot]

Jesus. There's a minimal difference.

wat

 

[Dostoevsky]

Jesus. There's a minimal difference.

Nah, no way. LOTR is way better but The Hobbit is also very good imo.

 

[Ocelot]

The first Hobbit wasn't that bad, not great either, but good.

The second one was just mediocre.

 

[Hængebøffer]

Of course there's a difference since The Hobbit (the book) is made for children. But the style of the movies is basically the same. Jackson even added the retarded love story to The Hobbit.

 

[Ocelot]

 

[radekas]

 

[Völler]

Of course there's a difference since The Hobbit (the book) is made for children. But the style of the movies is basically the same. Jackson even added the retarded love story to The Hobbit.

I feel like The Hobbit movies are like light versions of the Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit might be a children book, but I don't think the movies are children films. They have tried to copy the tone from Lord of the Rings - certainly with The Desolation of Smaug. However, the story just isn't as epic, and there are just too not enough plot for three movies. The biggest problem for me is probably the characters though. Bilbo is boring, you never really get to know the dwarfs (except Thorin), and Gandalf and Gollum don't have a lot of screentime. Everything was just better in The Lord of the Rings. Even the special effects. I don't think The Hobbit movies are bad, just a lot worse than Lord of the Rings.

 

[Hængebøffer]

They certainly lack the epicness, but I wouldn't call them a lot worse than LoTR.

 

[Völler]

Speaking of: First reviews for The Hobbit: The Battle of The Five Armies: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hobbit_the_battle_of_the_five_armies/?search=the hobbit

 

[swag]

I only know the Turkish one:

I'm sorry, but that movie is actually called "SuperMe N".

Also, your clip excluded the scene where the superhero takes on the Armenian Genocide protesters.

 

[Ocelot]

Turkish Spiderman is much better.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

The younger much more fun.

Though for some reason I thought Sören said Gato negro lol.

hence the joke

 

[Hængebøffer]

It bring back memories from Spanish classes and drinking wine.

 

[Gerd]

More superhero news . An official short synopsis of fantastic four has been revealed , they will be four youngsters that get teleported to an alternate universe which alters their physical form in different ways .

 

[Post Ironic]

I would change the Hobbit movies into the Silmarillion movies.

Sadly, the film rights will never be given for the Silmarillion.

Rightfully so, too. First Jackson mildly butchered The Lord of the Rings. A decent job, but nothing special. And you think, alright, perhaps with the experience here, they'll get the Hobbit right... Nope, not at all. The two Hobbit films thus far are appallingly bad.

 

[ALC]

LOTR sucks ass. Both the books and the movie. Idk how people like it so much

 

[Enron]

ESPN 30/30 doc "Rand University". The very compelling story of Randy Moss. The guys that came out of that high school at that time were some of the best ever. Also the story of where I grew up.