I'm a big LOTR fan. The Hobbit was one of my favorite books as a child
That part I agree with. It was one of my favorites too.
One of my fondest memories was back in grade 3 at Burquitlam Elementry in Coquitlam where my elementary school principle just after the lunch hour would read us the Hobbit, followed by LotR. He was very much a Tolkien fan and he sure made one out of me
I'd imagine he's probably gone now, cheers to Mr Kennedy
Wow, I didn't know that you're a homie. I used to live in Port Coquitlam until I bought a house axxross the river in Pitt Meadows a while back... small world.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I thought it was generally accepted fact that Pacific Rim was a steaming pile of turd?
Not only did I like it but it has a 71% on Rotten tomatoes. Regardless of what one thinks of reviews I don't think that constitutes a "steaming pile of turd".
This on the other hand ...
I think Rotten Tomatoes 'scores' are more than a little suspect since their recent scorings of films such as Ghostbusters 2016 and Suicide Squad, all things considered, one might even consider them laughable.
Laughable is a bit extreme. RT aggregate review scores have value and I find that I tend to agree with them more often than not.
But you have to remember that they're just an aggregate of opinions. Actually reading some of the reviews instead of just looking at the scores is always a smarter option. Who knows, you might even get to know a critic that way who shares your likes and dislikes. If you do, bookmark his site and profit.
But their scores are not gospel, they're just a handy starting point.
Hell I never would have known just how good Mr. Robot or Preacher are if it wasn't from having my interest peaked by high RT scores.
They're not an aggregate of opinions at all.
They're an aggregrate of ratings - which, sadly, doesn't necessarily reflect real opinions.
In fact, it has become extremely obvious to me that a surprisingly large percentage of "opinions" - are really nothing but agenda-driven responses to entertainment that may or may not have been experienced by the person(s) giving the rating.
I thought it was generally accepted fact that Pacific Rim was a steaming pile of turd?
Not only did I like it but it has a 71% on Rotten tomatoes. Regardless of what one thinks of reviews I don't think that constitutes a "steaming pile of turd".
This on the other hand ...
I think Rotten Tomatoes 'scores' are more than a little suspect since their recent scorings of films such as Ghostbusters 2016 and Suicide Squad, all things considered, one might even consider them laughable.
They are just an aggregate of reviews and in truth, as Iselin points out, one should read the review over looking at the "green" or "red".
In truth one should always read any review as opposed to looking at a number or whatever visual metric they might use. That always yields better information.
But can I take it that you are thinking of seeing Nine Lives .... ?
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I thought it was generally accepted fact that Pacific Rim was a steaming pile of turd?
Not only did I like it but it has a 71% on Rotten tomatoes. Regardless of what one thinks of reviews I don't think that constitutes a "steaming pile of turd".
This on the other hand ...
I think Rotten Tomatoes 'scores' are more than a little suspect since their recent scorings of films such as Ghostbusters 2016 and Suicide Squad, all things considered, one might even consider them laughable.
They are just an aggregate of reviews and in truth, as Iselin points out, one should read the review over looking at the "green" or "red".
In truth one should always read any review as opposed to looking at a number or whatever visual metric they might use. That always yields better information.
But can I take it that you are thinking of seeing Nine Lives .... ?
That would work if it was feasible to read a thousand reviews.
Conclusively, just ignore aggregate scores altogether.
I'm a big LOTR fan. The Hobbit was one of my favorite books as a child
That part I agree with. It was one of my favorites too.
One of my fondest memories was back in grade 3 at Burquitlam Elementry in Coquitlam where my elementary school principle just after the lunch hour would read us the Hobbit, followed by LotR. He was very much a Tolkien fan and he sure made one out of me
I'd imagine he's probably gone now, cheers to Mr Kennedy
Wow, I didn't know that you're a homie. I used to live in Port Coquitlam until I bought a house axxross the river in Pitt Meadows a while back... small world.
Spent my teenage years in Port Coquitlam, Dog Patch ring a bell? My company resides in PoCo. I live in Maple Ridge these days just off of 207th.
Maybe an interesting conversation if you didn't see The Hobbit.
Jackson was a good choice back before he made LotR - because he had the passion and will to go through with it. Essentially, he was crazy enough to attempt that project and stay true to the material. With The Hobbit, it was clearly something else. Also, I consider FotR the only true masterpiece from him, and TT/RotK became progressively inferior - even though they're both good films.
The Hobbit movies were pale imitations, full of bad CGI filler action, tasteless slapstick and fart humor. About as far away from Tolkien as you could possibly get - apart from that one excellent theme song in the first movie.
The Hobbit "trilogy" 'nough said.
LotR shows passion and dedication. Heck I'm one of those who thinks he improved on the books - a rare feat.
The Hobbit OTOH was just a shameless milking of the Tolkien cash cow by all involved.
The Hobbit was a children's book. I don't think some people realize that. It was written for a younger audience. Peter Jackson did a great job for what it is.
I don't know what being a children's book has to do with expanding The Hobbit into 3 movies. That was just box office milking... plain and simple. You could overlook that a bit in the first part because the characters were being introduced and there was some good acting but the 2nd and 3rd installments dragged on and were noticeably stretched.
I personally don't have a problem with The Hobbit being split into three films. Whilst the book may have been short, that was because it was written for children and so cut out tons of stuff.
In actual terms, the time it takes Bilbo to meet the dwarves, leave the shire, do his thing at the mountain and come home is roughly equivalent to how long it takes Frodo to leave the shire, travel to mt doom and home again. They both take over a year, they both travel a similar distance.
If you actually break it down into points of interest in the stories, they aren't too far apart either. A similar amount of stuff happens in the hobbit as does in lord of the rings (rings is obviously ahead, just not as far as you'd think). The only difference is that LotR has pages and pages of descriptions: of the world, of the people, of the events, of the history. The Hobbit, being for children, skips most of that and just focuses on the fun.
Having said that, there are obviously problems with the 3 hobbit films. The first one, biggest problem for me was that the dwarves were basically invincible. There was no real feeling of danger, just cheesy action. You'd have thought, for example, that 13 dwarves being captured by the goblin king, in the centre of his domain, surrounded by thousands of goblins, that there'd be a bit of danger.....but no. Everyone was pretty chill, and with the help of bomburs belly and a few bits of wood they manage to escape. I mean, they even fall 500ft+ down a ravine and have the goblin king land on them and they aren't even winded.../facepalm
Luckily, they toned down the invincibility in the 2nd and 3rd films, but there were still moments of ridiculousness (escape by barrels for example).
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr80 Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr5X Shaman
Comments
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
They're an aggregrate of ratings - which, sadly, doesn't necessarily reflect real opinions.
In fact, it has become extremely obvious to me that a surprisingly large percentage of "opinions" - are really nothing but agenda-driven responses to entertainment that may or may not have been experienced by the person(s) giving the rating.
Truly, it's a sad state of affairs.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
Don't EVER use aggregate scores to try and determine what's good and what's not.
That used to work back in the day, but not anymore.
In truth one should always read any review as opposed to looking at a number or whatever visual metric they might use. That always yields better information.
But can I take it that you are thinking of seeing Nine Lives .... ?
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Conclusively, just ignore aggregate scores altogether.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
In actual terms, the time it takes Bilbo to meet the dwarves, leave the shire, do his thing at the mountain and come home is roughly equivalent to how long it takes Frodo to leave the shire, travel to mt doom and home again. They both take over a year, they both travel a similar distance.
If you actually break it down into points of interest in the stories, they aren't too far apart either. A similar amount of stuff happens in the hobbit as does in lord of the rings (rings is obviously ahead, just not as far as you'd think). The only difference is that LotR has pages and pages of descriptions: of the world, of the people, of the events, of the history. The Hobbit, being for children, skips most of that and just focuses on the fun.
Having said that, there are obviously problems with the 3 hobbit films. The first one, biggest problem for me was that the dwarves were basically invincible. There was no real feeling of danger, just cheesy action. You'd have thought, for example, that 13 dwarves being captured by the goblin king, in the centre of his domain, surrounded by thousands of goblins, that there'd be a bit of danger.....but no. Everyone was pretty chill, and with the help of bomburs belly and a few bits of wood they manage to escape. I mean, they even fall 500ft+ down a ravine and have the goblin king land on them and they aren't even winded.../facepalm
Luckily, they toned down the invincibility in the 2nd and 3rd films, but there were still moments of ridiculousness (escape by barrels for example).