Sir Christopher Lee (Saruman) has died at the age of 93
3 Likes
It’s sad to lose such a great man and actor.
3 Likes
aw, no ;-;
wow how am i just hearing about this? I feel so bad now
In my opinion i think return of the king is the best. It wraps up the series fantastically and has the best affects. yes the ending may be long but it is just showing the viewers what happens to the characters that we have spent so much time getting to know. It is one of my favorite movies and it will always be my favorite conclusion to any story out there.
Edited for Double Post - Slime
sup mr. grahmcracker, ya might wanna give this topic a read 
I wish mass effect ended like this
1 Like
Found this
3 Likes
I like all of the movies…
Yes, even the Hobbit trilogy.
Sue me.
1 Like
You clearly have no idea man. I like his LotR films but “The Hobbit” was a disaste that added too much unnessesary fluff, was loosely accurate to the book, depended too much on CGI (thus it looked awful compared to LOTR).
The Hobbit films felt like a cheap cash grab and it’s insulting.
2 Likes
Oh no. You clearly have no idea.
That’s because The Hobbit incorporated things from other books such as the simerallian. They called the movie “The Hobbit” but it was really all of Tolkien’s works of Middle Earth that aren’t LoTR.
There are many things that can only be done in CGI. What would you suggest they use instead? Do you think you could make a better Dragon using practical effects? Or perhaps you’d like to hire thousands of extras to get your army shots?
The Hobbit movies were anything but cheap, and you can’t call them a cash grab because Peter Jackson wanted to do them back when he made the rest of LoTR. The only reason he didn’t was because he couldn’t get the film rights from the people who made the animated one years prior. A cash grab is something that is made to capitalize on something else’s popularity. The Hobbit was always going to happen, and is likely to be the last we see of Tolkien’s world, Peter Jackson put the effort in to show as much of that world as possible. So yes, strictly speaking, there’s a lot of extra stuff in there. But it’s not random crap people made up to pad the runtime, it’s the incorporation of additional worldbuilding we would likely have never seen otherwise, the fact that you try to characterize this as a lowly cash grab, is what is truly insulting.
Most movies are adapted from books, and this entire topic is about things you’d like to see as movies, this comment could be said about almost anything.
2 Likes
Obviously the dragon had to be CGI. But making ever Goblin into CGI? That’s unnecessary. They could have used extras. And don’t tell me they can’t afford them, because this is a big-budget film guaranteed success.
Then don’t add it in something called “The Hobbit.” It would have been better to keep The Silmarrillion’s works in another film so they could get more money. Notice how in LOTR the worst things are the things they left out? It’s the opposite for The Hobbit.
I don’t see that anywhere. All I see is unfinished CGI, unnecessary changes which helps the main plot of the book get lost in a pool of confusing plots. It’s insulting to make an adaption of a book and change so many things. It’s like saying the book wasn’t good enough for a film and needed extra fluff. Honestly The Hobbit films would have been good if they made it into two films and kept it faithful. There’s a lot of rich lore in The Hobbit alone.
Also, how do you explain Battle of the Five Armies? It was just a incredibly long action movie with all the dumb tropes and left Bilbo in the dust. In the book, Bilbo does some stuff, and the battle isn’t even the main focus. Sure in the film they show what he does, but the main character is overshadowed by returning cast members, awful CGI, and overall just absolutely forgetting why it was a suitable climax.
Also, if you expect me to like the over-abundance of CGI in this film, you are mistaken. How am I supposed to enjoy a movie when everything looks half-baked? The goblins look awful, the CGI structures look bad, and some of the magic effects from Gandalf aren’t very good. The only thing I liked was Smaug. Why? Because they put a ton of time and effort into him. Even when he breathes fire they add the detail of his belly glowing. That was neat.
Also, the colors in the film are so… Bland. It’s honestly not very visually interesting. Hobbiton is the only place that looked good. Laketowne, the forest, The Lonely Mountain, all of them feature simply one color, and it’s a bland one. Now you can say Mordor is grey too, and I’d honestly agree. I dislike how grey everything is in Return of the King. But Return of the King at least had different locations due to the books jumping around, which helps ease off the bland colors for a while and lets the eye enjoy the different surroundings. The Hobbit, due to it’s pointless extending, stays in a place far too long, and the viewer gets bored of it.
Honestly, I can’t think of much good in this movies. Many people say Martin Freeman does a good job as Bilbo, but I only partially agree. Freeman has tendency to over-act his awkwardness and it’s very noticeable in these films. When he’s not in awkward situations he does great.
Anyways, I’m done ranting now.
1 Like
Not every goblin was CGI. The goblin king? Yes. Tge swarms? Obviously. But not every goblin was CGI.
Literally no one can afford enough extras for Battle of Five Armies.
There is no way this would have ever happened. Most people haven’t ever even heard of the Silmarrillion.
This is a subjective opinion, there’s nothing I can say here.
The fact that he incorporated the Silmarrillion is proof enough. He wanted to show more of the world, just because you don’t think he did it well doesn’t change that that was his goal. And you thinking that he didn’t do it well is once again a subjective opinion that I can’t really argue against.
You know, if it was just an adaptation of The Hobbit I’d probably agree with you. But in all honesty it wasn’t, it was an adaptation of all of Tolkien’s works that Peter Jackson could get the rights to. And you can argue that it shouldn’t have been called The Hobbit in that case, but had it been called anything else it probably wouldn’t have sold. I’m not saying it was the right choice, or that it’s completely excusable, but it is understandable.
I’m not even going to try to defend this, it’s definitely the weakest film and does have numerous problems.
Oh Hey, more subjective opinions!
1 Like
Then don’t make it so large. It wasn’t even that huge in the actual book.
The make a movie so people can learn about it.
So what about the scene with one of the dwarves having to be healed by an elf? Or introducing Bard so much earlier for no reason? It’s unnecessary fluff and makes a proper telling of the book lose focus.
If Jackson wanted to make something showcasing the richness of Middle Earth’s lore, then he shouldn’t have stuffed it in an adaption of a beloved children’s book. He should have made something like a documentary or maybe even another film showcasing all of that. It doesn’t fit in the Hobbit and it’s distracting.
That’s not wrong to have regarding why I think a movie is awful. Most reviewers use these.
1 Like
I’m not saying that all of the changes were made to show the world, just the lion’s share.
A movie that no one would but because they have no idea what it is?
Also, studios don’t generally fund fictional documentaries, they find theatrical movies.
This.
Yeah, but there’s no point in me trying to refute it. It’s your opinion. It’s highly unlikely to be swayed by some dude on the internet.
1 Like
How was Lord of the Rings so successful then? Not a lot of people read the books at the time, although it was considered a classic. Yet they made a movie about it and it was successful. Plus, I doubt once people heard The Silmarillion was part of the LOTR movies they would just say “huh”? No, it would get money.
But Peter Jackson was a producer at one point. He could literally do it himself.
I suppose so. Although, that makes me wonder why you even decided to bring it up in the first place.
That’s very simple:
First you insulted something I liked,
Then you insulted me,
And then you said something I think is wrong.
And this is the internet, so… yeah.
1 Like
That was opinion, first of all.
I did not intend it to be, and for that I apologize.
That’s literally the point of debate, and as such I can understand that.
1 Like
I know.
I figured.
Pretty much.
People do tend to insult bad movies.
Yeah, Orcs and environments aren’t on that list. The Orcs and Goblins could have, and should have, been done practically, and they shouldn’t have relied so much on greenscreen and instead made actual sets.
Oh and speaking of CGI Orcs, something I think is absolutely stupid,
Azog was practical, and actually looked like an Orc before they changed his design and CG’ed over the practical one.
eye twitch
eye twitch
There are only two orcs (with the exception of the giant armies of orcs) that were CGI, those being Azog and Bolg, why they decided to do that I don’t know. It was a design choice they made and never really explained. As for the environments, they are largely practical, particularly when it comes to the landscapes. The exceptions to this rule are places where it would be impossible/unsafe to film (like a cliff) or that are just too big to build (such as Erebor).
1 Like
You know what makes the first LOTR movies so good?
I mean besides obvious stuff, If you were to say one is the best, no matter what you said, I would agree.