Trying to p(rov)oke him back to post I see...Dilbert_X wrote:
Uzique would be able to explain it, not necessarily better but with a lot more words - if he hadn't rage quit (again) and gone off all crying and butthurt (again).
Macbeth, you really are a dense twat. You come into a thread about The Hobbit, spouting your inane opinion on how fantasy is shit (why bother posting in this thread after that?) with obviously no other intention than to provoke a reaction only so you can get all edgy and elitist how you find that such a small, succesful part of the fantasy genre is suddenly lived by millions and you somehow think you are better than those people by saying 'fantasy is shit'. You watch True Blood, your taste isn't above anyone else's.
I'm not a fan of fantasy either, if you ask me, good fantasy starter with Tolkien and ended with Tolkien. Believe it or not, The Hobbit is a pretty good book (can't say the same for he movie as i havent seen it yet) amd simply writing it off as bad because you think fantasy is shit is just dumb and having a mindset where you distegard all works in a sigle genre simply because 99% of that genre is shit will cost you the enjoyment of many other great works.
Enjoying fantasy and sci-fi isn't for everyone and yes, the majority of it is trash, but The Hobbit certainly isn't.
Just stop posting
I'm not a fan of fantasy either, if you ask me, good fantasy starter with Tolkien and ended with Tolkien. Believe it or not, The Hobbit is a pretty good book (can't say the same for he movie as i havent seen it yet) amd simply writing it off as bad because you think fantasy is shit is just dumb and having a mindset where you distegard all works in a sigle genre simply because 99% of that genre is shit will cost you the enjoyment of many other great works.
Enjoying fantasy and sci-fi isn't for everyone and yes, the majority of it is trash, but The Hobbit certainly isn't.
Just stop posting
I was excited for the movie, but now that I've gotten some more info on it, it's starting to look more and more like nothing but a money-maker for Peter Jackson
You can't criticise him for making money, I can criticise him because I just don't like his film-making style - Its too cartoonish, just doesn't convey any mood and the camera is always bloody moving.
Having compressed the LOTR to the point of cutting out key bits to give way for schmaltz, to be expanding the Hobbit into three films and adding extraneous nonsense to fill it is annoying.
Having compressed the LOTR to the point of cutting out key bits to give way for schmaltz, to be expanding the Hobbit into three films and adding extraneous nonsense to fill it is annoying.
Fuck Israel
Still in the middle of the book, but I'm really wondering how the hell he is going to pull off making a 300 page book into a trilogy. Is he tossing in stuff from Silmarillion maybe?
All the songs will be extended.
Most of the trillogy will be as a musical.
Most of the trillogy will be as a musical.
Nooooooooo.vmw
Why would that be a bad thing?
Good question. The Hobbit should be two movies only imo.Ultrafunkula wrote:
Still in the middle of the book, but I'm really wondering how the hell he is going to pull off making a 300 page book into a trilogy. Is he tossing in stuff from Silmarillion maybe?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
The Hobbit is going to be a trilogy?? Shit.
Maybe they'll add in the stuff they missed from LOTR, like Tom Bombadil for instance (and make it into a musical from there...)
Maybe they'll add in the stuff they missed from LOTR, like Tom Bombadil for instance (and make it into a musical from there...)
nah, im not. i came home to a friend watching it in my room one time and watched the last 20 minutes of the episode with her, it was awfulUltrafunkula wrote:
You're confusing it with Twi-Dicksucklight. Nothing wrong with True Blood. Lots of tits, good characters and it's pretty well written. The show I mean. Never read them books. Only vampire book I've read is Salems Lot.Winston_Churchill wrote:
and i dont know anyone other than the girliest of girls that watches true blood. and even they think it sucks.
Yeah, like a female elf (Kate from Lost) playing a prominent role in the movies, of an originally appendix insignificant male character.Ultrafunkula wrote:
Still in the middle of the book, but I'm really wondering how the hell he is going to pull off making a 300 page book into a trilogy. Is he tossing in stuff from Silmarillion maybe?
Makes you wonder though, if Tolkien's fantasy genre would be this well known if not for Gary Gygax.
First movie is about the goblin/orcs, second about Smaug, third about the five armies plus lead-in to Fellowship. Insert Silmarillon as filler.
Still think a double movie tops would have been plenty.
Trilogy? The fuck..?
Not to mention the script writing. I don't dislike Lord of the Rings specifically, I just don't think slow-motion camerawork is a substitute for drama. Which Peter Jackson does. All. the. fucking. time. Don't believe me? Just watch another highly overrated film, King Kong.Dilbert_X wrote:
You can't criticise him for making money, I can criticise him because I just don't like his film-making style - Its too cartoonish, just doesn't convey any mood and the camera is always bloody moving.
Having compressed the LOTR to the point of cutting out key bits to give way for schmaltz, to be expanding the Hobbit into three films and adding extraneous nonsense to fill it is annoying.
Agreed.Dilbert_X wrote:
Having compressed the LOTR to the point of cutting out key bits to give way for schmaltz, to be expanding the Hobbit into three films and adding extraneous nonsense to fill it is annoying.
It's been ages since I read it, but I would think 2 films (given Mr. Jackson's love of 3 hour epics) would be able to do it justice, while maintaining a pace that would keep the average viewers' attention for the full time.
A trilogy is probably just milking it, but that's not really a big complaint...I'll still be all "shuddup and take my money!" at release.
When did they say 'the Hobbit' was going to be three movies? As far as I know, it's still two.
Um, most "cartoonish" movies don't have many "moving cameras." You say LotR is too cartoonish and complain that it has a moving camera?Dilbert_X wrote:
You can't criticise him for making money, I can criticise him because I just don't like his film-making style - Its too cartoonish, just doesn't convey any mood and the camera is always bloody moving.
Having compressed the LOTR to the point of cutting out key bits to give way for schmaltz, to be expanding the Hobbit into three films and adding extraneous nonsense to fill it is annoying.
I want to see the movie just for this scene. Only one I remember from when I was a kid.
EDIT: I remember a sword named Sting too. Either way, it was my favorite cartoon movie when I was a kid, wanna see the movie.
Wiki says it's a trilogyunnamednewbie13 wrote:
When did they say 'the Hobbit' was going to be three movies? As far as I know, it's still two.Um, most "cartoonish" movies don't have many "moving cameras." You say LotR is too cartoonish and complain that it has a moving camera?Dilbert_X wrote:
You can't criticise him for making money, I can criticise him because I just don't like his film-making style - Its too cartoonish, just doesn't convey any mood and the camera is always bloody moving.
Having compressed the LOTR to the point of cutting out key bits to give way for schmaltz, to be expanding the Hobbit into three films and adding extraneous nonsense to fill it is annoying.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Brendan Fraser set them back decades..unnamednewbie13 wrote:
It's all about vampires and zombies. What happened to mummies? I miss mummy movies.
Piers Anthony says Xanth is a trilogy. Currently, there are over 30 books in it.Jay wrote:
Wiki says it's a trilogy
http://screenrant.com/hobbit-3-movie-trilogy/
or the official website http://www.thehobbit.com/#content=about
or the official website http://www.thehobbit.com/#content=about
“The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” will be released on December 14, 2012, with the second film, “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug,” releasing December 13, 2013, andthe third film, “The Hobbit: There and Back Again” slated for July 18, 2014.
Definitely a trilogy. Jackson had enough film for two really really long movies so instead he's splitting them in three which makes the backers happy I guess. The films won't be as long as the Rings films so it will probably be about 2/3rds the length of the Rings trilogy in total running time anyway.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Does that mean the redo of the Lord of the Rings will be nine movies?