With as many problems as the Hobbit movie trilogy had, I can say one thing for sure: Martin Freeman was a perfect Bilbo. Him being constantly irritated that he wasn’t able to sit comfortably and have a meal, all the way from the Shire to the Battle of Five Armies, was flawless. Freeman was a very good John Watson in the BBC Sherlock, but if The Hobbit movies had been better then his Bilbo would have been up there with RDJ as Tony Stark and Patrick Stewart as Professor X as greatest casting decisions of all time.
My main issue, as far as I can remember, was that it tried a BIT too hard to beat LotR in terms of drama and excitement when the original is clearly far less grandiose, but yes, the casting was definitely very solid, just like the first trilogy.
Doorbell?
It’s been a while since I last watched that movie but perhaps he did in fact have a little bell by the door for visitors to ring instead of knocking?
It is a “door bell” literally, I think we just associate doorbells with electricity because the mechanical ones created in the late 1800s weren’t around long historically before electricity was widely available. They had pull strings, buttons with springs to strike the bell, etc
Yeah, that’s what I though of as well, but I don’t blame the other guy for not being able to picture something like that because honestly, when was the last time you’ve seen one of those?
In the west, they’re all electronic and have been electric since long before I was born. Occasionally, some people might have one of those old school door knockers, you know, some heavy bronze thingie mounted to the door that you can make a bit of a ruckus with.
But actual bells? Maybe in 3rd world countries you’ll see one every now and then but they’re exceedingly rare these day.
My personal favorite were the twisting doorbells where you rotate a ratcheting knob that strikes the bell repeatedly as it turns
Wait, shouldn’t the text be in the second frame?
- “It is peaceful and quite, life is good”
- “Doorbell rings and hobbit is annoyed”
Technically it would belong right between the frames I suppose
I stared at it thinking this for a good minute.
Difficult opinion: I think the movies don’t age well. Looked into the old one and they’re corny, one dimensional and outright dumb at places.
Yeah, I was a big fan of lotr and the hobbit growing up (the books). I thought the lotr films were excellent, overall. Of course, they couldn’t include everything, and there were some minor deviations, but pretty damned good.
The Hobbit movies were hot garbage, imo. They diverge wildly from the book, and are very often indistinguishable from video game cut scenes.
The LOTR trilogy is an epic saga, the hobbit movies are a theme park ride. A nice theme park ride imo, but yeah they don’t have any of the depth and gravitas of the OGs.
The number of people in this thread claiming to dislike the second most popular trilogy in cinematic history - LOTR - is statistically unlikely.
I think this is a scene from The Hobbit.
And while I do recall that one definitely being far less popular than LotR when it was released, I think it was mainly due to taking too much liberty with the source material in order to make a little book less than half the size of a single volume of the other last for a whole trilogy, I don’t really think it deserved THAT much hate.
The first most popular being Spy Kids of course.
He’s an incredibly annoying and powerless character.
You’re an incredibly annoying and powerless character.
Ad hominem lol. Really goes to show what people who enjoy those movies are like.
I suppose I cannot reasonably accuse you of an ad hominem as well since a movie character isn’t a real person, and it could instead be considered a criticism of the writer, but inasfar as it WAS a criticism of the writing, it is profoundly lazy and cheap, i.e. it basically has all the same problems you are accusing it of having.
So your response to attacking me personally and getting called out is checks notes trying to turn around the Ad hominem accusation? You’re a special kind of snowflake that’s for sure.
No, my response was explaining how your criticism exhibits the same flaws as the thing you were criticizing, which is evidence that my accusation was based on actual facts and therefore not an insult, but merely an observation.
You’re a special kind of snowflake that’s for sure.
YOU on the other hand just committed an ad hominem also, and ironically just after telling me that’s bad.
The way I see it, that leaves us with two options:
- If you don’t agree with or understand my argument, we can agree we’re both guilty of an ad hominem and leave it at that
- You start growing some brains and stop relying on your one trick pony of elementary formal fallacies to beat people over the head with
Your choice.
I suppose I cannot reasonably accuse you of an ad hominem as well since a movie character isn’t a real person
You literally admitting that your first response was to try to turn it around, like the special snowflake you still are.
YOU on the other hand just committed an ad hominem also, and ironically just after telling me that’s bad.
Being a special snowflake means getting offended easily, which you clearly are and your responses show that. It’s as much an ad hominem as saying someone telling another person to speak softer because they’re yelling is committing ad hominem, which is to say it isn’t. It’s a criticism of your actions.
The way I see it
And who gave you what authority? To begin with, if you didn’t want a discussion you wouldn’t have started a post. Your reactions so far tell me that you’re so insecure about that character in a fictional novel that you’re looking for confirmation bias. Do you also build your personality around what others think? That’s telling.
You start growing some brains
This is just the cherry on top. Again.
You literally admitting that your first response was to try to turn it around, like the special snowflake you still are.
So your defense is to repeat the ad hominem, is it? Did you not also accuse me of doing that?
Being a special snowflake means getting offended easily, which you clearly are and your responses show that.
I appreciate you taking the time to explain that, but “getting offended” is still rather subjective, so let’s try and break it down further, shall we?
Being offended generally means getting upset or taking things personally, which manifests as prioritizing winning the argument over establishing the truth. Which of us appears to be doing more of the former vs. the latter?
It’s as much an ad hominem as saying someone telling another person to speak softer because they’re yelling is committing ad hominem, which is to say it isn’t. It’s a criticism of your actions.
Well, I was also just criticizing your actions, so where does that leave us? It sounds like you’re also just trying to explain away your ad hominem, which, again, is the same thing you have accused me of.
And who gave you what authority?
“The way I see it” is clearly an indication that what follows is a subjective opinion, not a fact. There’s no claim to authority being made here other than me being the observer of my own experience.
To begin with, if you didn’t want a discussion you wouldn’t have started a post.
That applies to your original comment as well, meaning you did what you’re accusing me of first. Pot, meet kettle.
Your reactions so far tell me that you’re so insecure about that character in a fictional novel that you’re looking for confirmation bias.
Wrong. My intention was to help you realize that you’re simply just projecting your own perceived shortcomings on a fictional character and venting it here in order to get confirmation bias.
Do you also build your personality around what others think? That’s telling.
More ad hominems then? Keep it up. I’m not afraid to roll in the mud if I have to but you must realize you’re only digging the hole deeper rather than making an effort to climb out of it.
This is just the cherry on top. Again.
Sounds like you’re easily offended, my friend. I think you had a word for that earlier, what was it? Special snowflake?
Bad films.
Let’s see your version then.
Oh shit - I guess they must be great!
They’re aight, you just have bad taste
LotR movies were great. Hobbit squeezed more out of the book than it had in it.
Should’ve been a single 180 min movie as true to the material as LotR was and it would have been great, too.
