The Gaming Den

RobbyPants wrote:You didn't like it. We get it. Stop trying to explain it so hard.

Yeah! Never attempt to explain, justify or understand your opinions! You should hold them for no reason at all like RobbyPants apparently does!

I don't see how someone's opinion of a movie is important enough to explain any further than a follow-up to elaborate. I don't care enough to either make people like movies I like or hate movies I hate.

Pseudo Stupidity wrote:I just figured the subtitle was a choice to differentiate the movie from the other The Hobbit movies. It's a ~270 page book with pictures. I Didn't expect him to make a trilogy out of that, even with the extra background.

None of the other films actually had the full name of the book as the movie title. Although the Russian adaptation ( Сказочное путешествие мистера Бильбо Беггинса Хоббита ("The Fantastic Journey of the Hobbit Mr. Bilbo Baggins") ) has the most awesome name of all the film adaptations. source: Wiki page

PhoneLobster wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:You didn't like it. We get it. Stop trying to explain it so hard.

Yeah! Never attempt to explain, justify or understand your opinions! You should hold them for no reason at all like RobbyPants apparently does!

Exactly! You should only express them by reducing them to stupid levels of simplicity so you can make your point, like PhoneLobster and Pseudo Stupidity!

Jesus Christ. I don't care that he doesn't like the movie. I don't care that he's talking about it. I care about when he reduces the point to such a stupid level of stupidity to justify his position.

Way to completely miss the fucking point.

RobbyPants wrote:I care about when he reduces the point to such a stupid level of stupidity to justify his position.

Way to completely miss the fucking point.

I don't see how "sequences existed that did not move the plot forward or flesh out any characters" is reducing a point to "a stupid level of stupidity."

Do I need to elaborate as to which scenes were just fuckery?

What was the long-ass chase sequence in the fields there for (they were headed to Rivendell anyways)? The entire thunder battle shit with the mountains being giants (throwaway line about a storm being turned into a long sequence)? Most of the camping scenes?

Even the chase sequence underground feels unnecessary because it just keeps going and going, and it serves no purpose except "they escape." Why couldn't they have escaped when they whipped the shit out of all those goblins when Gandalf showed up? Why not execute the great goblin then and there while he was helpless, just like in the book? There wasn't even tension in the chase, it was slapstick comedy.

Fuck it, I'm just going to learn Russian and go watch "The Fantastic Journey of the Hobbit Mr. Bilbo Baggins." That movie sounds like the bee's knees.[/i]

Pseudo Stupidity wrote: I don't see how "sequences existed that did not move the plot forward or flesh out any characters" is reducing a point to "a stupid level of stupidity."

Pseudo Stupidity wrote:I am curious as to why people liked the movie. Was it really that fun watching people get chased around by goblins on wargs again?

This implies that both scenes were similar to the point of being boring to watch more than once, despite the events leading up to the chase, what happens during the chase, and how the scenes are resolve are entirely different between both movies.

So, yes, reducing to a stupid level of stupidity simplicity*.


*My bad, BTW. That was supposed to be simplicity originally. Department of Redundancy Department, and all.

Pseudo Stupidity wrote:I am curious as to why people liked the movie. Was it really that fun watching people get chased around by goblins on wargs again?

I liked the movie for two reasons: The first is that it was a chance to see Tolkein's world brought to the golden screen again, which is always fun.

The second is that it had Sylvester McCoy in it. I love McCoy because he played the Seventh Doctor, and as a nerd, that makes me really happy to see him doing stuff again, especially since he's playing Radagast the Brown, who was one of my favorite secondary characters.

Also, you do realize that the movie had scenes in it other than the TWO warg chase scenes, right?

Isn't this whole discussion in the wrong thread anyway?

Pseudo, it feels to me as though some of the things you hated are what I enjoyed. I can tell the dwarves apart in the movie far better thanks to the longer camp scenes and the time at Bilbo's house. So I really appreciated those longer scenes. Before they were just a collection of silly names with maybe an adjective apiece (as it is tough to give depth to 15 characters in 270 pages). Now at least I have gotten to know a lot more of the character of several of them as their dress, movements and expressions really do give a more thorough impression.

I liked that the Necromancer was tied in more strongly. Especially as it gave cause for Luna to get a bit of screen time for me to work my slight elf crush in an otherwise total sausage fest.

All in all the movie was very pretty, the acting was well done, and the lines were good. It did a great job of portraying middle earth beautifully and telling the story.

Parts I did not care for:
The warg chase with Radagast going in circles around the dwarves. That just irritated me and they could have cut that down considerably.

The storm giants. Granted, a stone giant ruckus with a mighty storm was called for, but I thought it was a bit overdone. Meh.

and worst of all
(spoilered because K isn't watching the movies and he shouldn't have to suffer years of this knowledge)

The ring falling on Bilbo's finger. I would have much preferred if they did a close up of his hand playing with the ring in his pocket, and a finger finally slipping it on as in the book.

That fucking ring must be jonesing hard for hobbits the way it falls onto them in utterly improbable ways, or worse, the same improbable way twice. I imagine if Bilbo and Gandalf were having sex in Gollum's cave, the ring would just roll along and slip onto Bilbo's penis and pop right into Gandalf's anus (yeah, Bilbo's pitchin). Fucking ring.

erik wrote:Pseudo, it feels to me as though some of the things you hated are what I enjoyed. I can tell the dwarves apart in the movie far better thanks to the longer camp scenes and the time at Bilbo's house. So I really appreciated those longer scenes. Before they were just a collection of silly names with maybe an adjective apiece (as it is tough to give depth to 15 characters in 270 pages). Now at least I have gotten to know a lot more of the character of several of them as their dress, movements and expressions really do give a more thorough impression.

I liked that the Necromancer was tied in more strongly. Especially as it gave cause for Luna to get a bit of screen time for me to work my slight elf crush in an otherwise total sausage fest.

All in all the movie was very pretty, the acting was well done, and the lines were good. It did a great job of portraying middle earth beautifully and telling the story.

That's what I'm talkin' about! It was neat to see the characters in the book on the screen, though I'd say now they're just a collection of silly faces with maybe a quirk a piece. The people I know who liked the movie have a very similar reason for liking it as Shrapnel: they wanted to see Middle Earth again (or had a specific actor they liked, I guess Thorin is famous for being hot or something like that).

I agree about your worst of all complaint as well, it was weird how that happened and I'm hoping it becomes a running gag at this point because nobody can take it seriously. I assure you if Jackson does that I will watch the other two movies just to see what other situations that conveniently happens in.

I'm hoping Bilbo gets tired of the ring and tries to throw it away, but it bounces off a rock only to go soaring into the air and land back on his finger.

@Shrapnel: I know the movie had other scenes, I just didn't like the majority of them. I found it boring and very "been there, done that," especially when compared to the book, which was anything but.

And with that I'll bow out of the thread, having had my jimmies unrustled.

Pseudo, apparently all your complaints boil down to "I hate it when action occurs in an action movie, that shit is balls."

I'm sorry, what. Are you going to complain the same fucking way during the spiders/smog/battle of armies? Because guess what, all of those are going to be action, in an action movie.

And so far your complaints include any time there is action of any kind.*

* You actually haven't complained about the troll scene, but I assume that is only because you didn't remember to bring it up, because it sure didn't do any character development or plot advancement either, since they were already going to rivendell during the warg scene.

Kaelik wrote:Pseudo, apparently all your complaints boil down to "I hate it when action occurs in an action movie, that shit is balls."

I'm sorry, what. Are you going to complain the same fucking way during the spiders/smog/battle of armies? Because guess what, all of those are going to be action, in an action movie.

And so far your complaints include any time there is action of any kind.*

* You actually haven't complained about the troll scene, but I assume that is only because you didn't remember to bring it up, because it sure didn't do any character development or plot advancement either, since they were already going to rivendell during the warg scene.

Huh? I love action in movies, and I have complained about the troll scene (first post I made in this thread I think).

The Protector (which is Tony Jaa screaming about elephants and then beating the shit out of everyone for its entire duration. ) is one of my favorite movies, because I love mindless action flicks. I just don't want mindless action in my adventure stories/epics. Action should exist to further the story, not just be there because "fuck yeah, violence." That is, unless your movie is just about the violence. If it's just about the violence you better not give me more than 5 minutes of exposition unless it's being beaten out of somebody. Tony Jaa understands.


Shifting gears...
The Protector is a piece of entertainment that completely rocked me. From the moment Tony Jaa screams "You killed my father and stole my elephants" and flies into a berserker rage that lasts for well over an hour the movie is solid gold. Then, just when you think the movie couldn't get any better, some sort of professional wrestler hurls a baby elephant through a window.

Pseudo Stupidity wrote:I just don't want action in my adventure stories/epics.

You are an idiot.

Wonder what Pseudo would say about the Ralph Bakshi LotR movies, then.

Kaelik wrote:

Pseudo Stupidity wrote:I just don't want action in my adventure stories/epics.

You are an idiot.

The word "mindless" is missing from your quote, Kaelik. It is in Pseudo's original post.

Game On,
fbmf

fbmf wrote:

Kaelik wrote:

Pseudo Stupidity wrote:I just don't want action in my adventure stories/epics.

You are an idiot.

The word "mindless" is missing from your quote, Kaelik. It is in Pseudo's original post.

Game On,
fbmf

Yes, that is intentional, because his definition of mindless action includes all action sequences ever filmed by anyone in any movie. He has so far labelled every single action sequence in the Hobbit and LOTR as mindless because they "don't advance the plot or character development" even when they manifestly do advance the plot or character development.

I'm not going to let him get away with lying about how he only hates "mindless" action any more than I would let someone get away with saying they hate the sin not the sinner.

What?

Pieces of action that are not mindless in LoTR 1:

Gandalf vs Saruman (sp?) (establishes Saruman is a bad dude, and stronger than Gandalf)
The battle on Weathertop (Frodo is going to die!)
The Ring Wraith Chase (Elves are safe in Rivendell even though evil is running amok, also the Ring is saved/safe for now)
The watcher in the water/whatever the thing is called (The Fellowship has to go to Moria now, which is bad)
The Mines of Moria sequence (not going to type out everything this does, a lot more happens than them getting out of Moria)
The ending battle (same with this one)

I think that's also the entirety of the fighting in the movie. Each bit serves to move the plot forward and/or develop the characters.

What does the Warg chase establish in An Unexpected Journey? Did it change the story at all?

What about the entire last battle?

None of it means anything. They just got from point A to point B in a more violent fashion.

I can tell you why shit happened in the book if that helps.

Trolls: They get sweet gear, also establishes that Bilbo is a horrible burglar (this happens in the movies as well, but adds an action scene because why not).

Goblin fight then chase: Bilbo gets the ring as a direct result of this. We see just how little the dwarves think of Bilbo, and then they think much better of him once it's finished. Bilbo also shows that he is competent on his own. In the movie, this is more drawn out than it is pointless because Bilbo gets the ring from the capture, not the ensuing combat or chase, but the dwarves do need to escape. So in the movie all this does is get the dwarves free. Bilbo is shown to be competent through riddles in the dark, which would have happened in the movie even if all the dwarves just magically escaped.

Wargs in the forest: They are saved by eagles, which take them outside of Beron's (sp?) house. This is the least important combat in the book, and it's just them climbing trees and throwing burning pinecones. I guess it establishes Warg riders as a thing, but it's pretty unimportant.

In the movie, this begs the question of why Gandalf doesn't ask his eagle buddies to fly them to the mountain (or why they ever walked in the first place). It's in view and there are no Nazgul to fight them, so the eagles stand to lose nothing but time. Since they're basically Gandalf's bitches (how quickly do they respond? It's pretty damn fast) there is no reason for him not to do this.

The final battle also makes Bilbo a dumbass for jumping down to fight without putting the ring on (unless I'm just not remembering this correctly). Wargs can smell you when you are invisible, but goblins can't. He could have just shanked their leader and been done with it.

Yeah, the combat in the movie really was mindless for the most part. The only combat that really furthered the plot was the trolls, and that part wasn't even solved by the combat. I don't begrudge people for enjoying fight scenes that don't further the plot. I like movies where the plot is just there to justify the fight scenes (and the less plot the better), but there are movies where certain scenes are wastes of time. In An Unexpected Journey there are a lot of scenes that could be removed without anything important being lost. The first chase scene is the most obvious offender.

Pseudo Stupidity wrote:Shifting gears...
The Protector is a piece of entertainment that completely rocked me. From the moment Tony Jaa screams "You killed my father and stole my elephants" and flies into a berserker rage that lasts for well over an hour the movie is solid gold. Then, just when you think the movie couldn't get any better, some sort of professional wrestler hurls a baby elephant through a window.

This actually probably belongs in the other thread now, but I want to voice my heartfelt agreement. The Protector is a totally sweet movie.

echo

How the fuck do you not see that you are just a dumbshit?

I mean, a character might die from being stabbed counts as plot/character development but somehow all possible fucking combats are not plot/character development?

Watcher in the water is plot development because it chases them into moria, but giants/warg chase aren't, even though they both do the same fucking thing of corralling the party?

Establishing that elves are safe in Rivendell counts as plot development but the Warg chase obviously demonstrating the same fucking thing is somehow not?

And for the final battle of LOTR, aside from that it exists 100% as a distraction for Frodo what other plot or character development occurs? We were already told they were all going to die, we already saw all the strength in the face of certain death + We are totally the good guys who are friends with each other stuff. It was literally a minor distraction, and that was the point.

There is literally no fucking difference between the character/plot development of your examples and the same scenes that occur in the fucking hobbit.

Also, you missed like half the fight scenes in LOTR, remember when the refugees get attacked so Aragon can float down a fucking river? Remember all the shit that Hobbits and Ents do that has literally nothing to do with the rest of the plot?

My criticisms with TH:AUJ

-I thought the scene in Rivendell with Saruman, Galadriel, Gandalf, and Elrond was a mindless talking scene. I don't know why it was there, or why they didn't make it short enough where taking a piss means you get to miss it. That scene could have been taken out completely.

-The stone giants were too much. I don't mind that they were there, but they were a bit overkill. Great effect, but too much.

-Did there really need to be bird crap caked on Radagast's face? I liked everything else about the character, but that made me feel nauseous. And the troll snot didn't need to be there, it sicked me out. YMMV when it comes to crude humor, but I have a low tolerance for it. My dad thought the troll snot was hilarious, so maybe it's just me.

Kaelik wrote: Also, you missed like half the fight scenes in LOTR, remember when the refugees get attacked so Aragon can float down a fucking river? Remember all the shit that Hobbits and Ents do that has literally nothing to do with the rest of the plot?

He said he was referring only to LotR 1. Those fights were in the 2nd movie.

Your comparison points are valid however. I don't see the difference between the fight scenes.

The first chase scene was useful, just overly long and I was irritated that Radagast repeatedly kept going by them. A shot of him disappearing over the hills followed by wargs and with some starting to get winded would have served much better.

On the Eagles not taking them straight to the mountain, I know the reason is because they don't want to get too close to the human settlements who might use their longbows to shoot em down. So they set the party down as close as they dared. I wish the Eagles could talk and explain as they did in the books, but apparently it was a decision somewhere along the way that Eagles aren't allowed to talk in the movie Middle Earth. That's too bad.

And to Ted, yeah, the bird crap was a bit much. I mean, it was like an ostrich had diarrhea or something. A spot or two on the shoulder would have served, if anything was really even needed.

Kaelik wrote:How the fuck do you not see that you are just a dumbshit?

I mean, a character might die from being stabbed counts as plot/character development but somehow all possible fucking combats are not plot/character development?

Watcher in the water is plot development because it chases them into moria, but giants/warg chase aren't, even though they both do the same fucking thing of corralling the party?

Establishing that elves are safe in Rivendell counts as plot development but the Warg chase obviously demonstrating the same fucking thing is somehow not?

And for the final battle of LOTR, aside from that it exists 100% as a distraction for Frodo what other plot or character development occurs? We were already told they were all going to die, we already saw all the strength in the face of certain death + We are totally the good guys who are friends with each other stuff. It was literally a minor distraction, and that was the point.

There is literally no fucking difference between the character/plot development of your examples and the same scenes that occur in the fucking hobbit.

Also, you missed like half the fight scenes in LOTR, remember when the refugees get attacked so Aragon can float down a fucking river? Remember all the shit that Hobbits and Ents do that has literally nothing to do with the rest of the plot?

If you can't even bother reading posts I really shouldn't bother responding to you, but you're wrong on the Internet (and so desperately trying to be right), so I'll do it.

The warg chase does nothing. They were already headed to Rivendell, and the world was not being threatened by some great evil in The Hobbit. The warg chase accomplishes nothing except establishing that the goblins that are chasing the party are chasing the party, and they use other scenes to do that anyways.

The giants are an example of a scene being needlessly long to accomplish what it wanted to accomplish. They also aren't chased by giants, they just happen to be standing on them. They could have stayed in the cave for any reason whatsoever, having this big action scene with the giants is just more padding for a movie that is too damn long.

Combat for the sake of combat isn't furthering the plot or developing characters. If something important happens or is at stake then yeah, combat can be meaningful. The least important combat in LoTR 1 takes all of 30 seconds because it exists as a device to force them into Moria. The least important combat/action scene in An Unexpected Journey takes for fucking ever and exists to...get the party where they were already going? Color me impressed, that is some great storytelling.

Pseudo Stupidity wrote:Tony Jaa understands.

If you've seen Ong Bak 2 or 3 then you know that Tony Jaa doesn't understand. Tony Jaa doesn't understand because Tony Jaa is batshit fucking insane. Seriously, those films are bullshit.

So the bottom line is, you didn't watch the movie, and you are an idiot.

They weren't going to fucking Rivendell, they were explicitly fighting about it and Thorin said over and over that they weren't going to fucking Rivendell.

Then they were forced to go to Rivendell.

That is way more forcing then when they already decided to go to Moria, and then they were in the process of trying to go into Moria when they were "forced" into Moria.

The only purpose for the watcher scene is to put them audience in fear for Frodo's life. You know, like every fucking action scene in the Hobbit, where you wonder if they are going to die, but you really know they definitely won't.

Parthenon wrote:

Pseudo Stupidity wrote:Tony Jaa understands.

If you've seen Ong Bak 2 or 3 then you know that Tony Jaa doesn't understand. Tony Jaa doesn't understand because Tony Jaa is batshit fucking insane. Seriously, those films are bullshit.

Awesome bullshit...