Sorry for the interruption, but we'd really appreciate it if you watched some of our videos!
All videos are written, performed, and edited by the Agony Booth staff, so they're just like the
recaps you know and love, only without all that annoying reading!
12/18/2012 3:37:15 PM
I have never heard of you before the Linkara cross over (or this site). I wasn't sure about the Wonder Woman review, at first, but your notes on female empowerment in that room, combined with the fact that, in this video, you said things about the 1977 Hobbit that I have been saying, and trying to convince people in my life of, for years and years - from the music, to the design, and more. Thank you. You have legitimately earned a new viewer. I can't wait to look through your other videos, and hear what you have to say.
12/18/2012 3:55:31 PM
YAY! ..... most of my other videos are crap.. damn.. erh.. I promise! I have improved! i'll work hard to put out new better content in the new year! heh..Thanks for giving me a chance. Again, I am sort of new at this, not the best in buisness by a long strecht, my production value is.. not just mini-scule it's none existence, but I really enjoy making these, and I do enjoy movies, plus have opinions which some find.. different. Like my view on feminism as you can see. In my own words.. feminism is dumb, I make fun of feminism, that's all I feel like I can do with it. Does that mean there are no issues regarding women in fictional media? .. no, there's tons of issues, but by any fight against it. "feminism." or. "we need female empowerment." isn't helping. And even more, I kind of want to avoid making it a gimmick that I am female producer, I am just a geeky producer whom happens to be female. And to top it off, I have nothing against re-makes at all.. which is the other controversial things i've been called out on. No, i'm fine with the concept of re-makes! I don't like bad movies giving good source material a good name, but the concept of re-makes itself, no i'm good, there's room for two different versions of the hobbit, I enjoyed both of these.
12/1/2012 8:53:00 PM
I'll be honest. I am not really looking forward to the Hobbit movies. Setting aside the fact that I am being asked to pay for three films when there should only be one, this is a prequel and I already know how it ends. It was one thing to be utterly blown away by the first three films, but now I guess after already seeing this world brought to life over a nine hour period I have had my fun and I don't feel the same excitement I once did.By the way, I love the animated movie. This was one of the reasons I started playing Dungeons & Dragons and it still stands up to this day as a wonderful work of art. Everything from the animation to the music to the voice acting. Just a wonderful film. And yeah, Sophie, you are right; they managed to make an effective Hobbit adaption in a single film. A. Single. Film.
12/2/2012 2:51:17 PM
for me.. it's fantasy, it's old school, it's gonna be big, it's gonna be pretty.. what is there not to like? And if you think about it for a second, it would have happened some-how at some point regardless of things, I don't think it could have been handled better then it ended up being. But beside that, this is a rare oppertunity for me, to have seen some-thing while I was still just a little kid, barely understanding what the story was about, but just saw the magnitude with a childs eyes without being able to really understand what it was I saw. Now having gained a sense of nostalgia from that gets to re-visit it! and in some-thing that does not look like it's going to be a dumb Star Wars Prequel, but some-thing actually good, I mean.. wow, how amazing is that? I honestly also became surprised how much I ended up liking this movie, I actually.. do not really like the Ralph Baskin Lord of the rings movie, I just really enjoy it. But this? This I enjoyed a lot, funny really :) And lets not take the sadness in advance in regard to the hobbit being three movies, i'm going to give it a go and give every-body my honest opinion after the movie is over ;)
12/2/2012 9:59:04 PM
I have odd feelings about going in to this one. Big Confession time: of haven't seen any of the Lord of the Rings adaptations! Which as a little embarressing for a filmbuff. Yet I have found memories of this animated Hobbit adaptation and acting in a stage production of The Hobbit when I was 11. So I've been kind of looking forward to this film since I heard it was in the planning stages. However, since I at least know the basic story this time it's a little hard for me to imagine how they can stretch into three films. Two maybe (our play had an intermession after all), but three?
12/4/2012 7:23:06 AM
I still say don't take the sorrowns in advance, there's no way this'll be a new star Wars prequel.. also.. this movie is going to earn money no matter what. HOLY SHIT! I went to my local cinemas website this weekend to see when I would be able to order tickets.. I could right then and there, and there was barely any tickets left, not only that, I could not just book them, I had to buy them straight away for print.. and those are the most exspensive cinema tickets I have ever bought, 110 danish kroners.. are you fucking kidding me? This movie better be damn good! i'll give you all a review as soon as I can ;)
12/1/2012 12:11:37 PM
Aww you didn't like Brave? I thought it was pretty good.The new Hobbit does look pretty good (I hope you were joking about each being 3 hours) it's a shame that I know it's not gonna have a satifying conclusion since there's still two more parts after it.
12/1/2012 12:30:01 PM
I like Brave, but I think we all agree it didn't life up to the say it mildly huge exspectations. It's an merely okay movie where in the all around exspectations was that it was going to be an epic changing every-thing... some-how. And.. well, they are over two hours! they are full evening movies, and dude remember the Lord of the rings directors cut? those really are three hours and still not all scenes are included.. Peter Jackson just films a ton of shit and then cut together what makes more sense afterwards.. so yeah I wouldn't be surprised if the three hour long directors cut of the hobbit happened <_<
12/3/2012 8:01:58 AM
On Brave, first off I liked it a lot, had read/seen good and bad reviews before going in (MovieBob, HitFix, et al...tried to avoid spoilers; mostly succeeded) so I was equally braced for it to be a disappointment or a good film, and saw it with my family; no complaints. But after seeing it I went back and read Drew McWeeny's full Motion Captured review on HitFix and was surprised by his point that part of the story was the daughter having to take on the parental role toward her mother after the change, and how much that had resonated to him. I went and asked my folks if they had seen it that way, cause it hadn't occurred to me, the answer was: of course [said in that way every-ones parents have of showing that they thought you were smarter than that]. So my current working theory, is that by and large it didn't resonate with the kids-adults w/o children as much as they should of had it do (not that it explains me liking it, as I'm not a parent)
12/3/2012 9:48:37 AM
I do think a bit problem with Brave is that it feels like it's building up to some-thing so much bigger. It takes it's time to ever so slowly set up this world, give hints to mystical creatures, collect all of these clans mens, whom clearly states that they have been in big battles together, it genuinly feels like the movie is prepairing us and itself for some-thing absolutely huge, some-thing big! and then.. mom turns into a bear, which is an event smaller than the set-up, and it even feels like all of that massive set-up is one big cheat, which makes you dissapointed. The story between Meridath and her mother is good! it's even very good, their charactersation and relation is damn good. It's even a delight seeing two women getting this kind of a story, and it's even very strong, but.. put it up against that big set-up with spend fourty minutes on before (fourty minutes!) .. it still feels like a cheat, and a sort of dissapointment.. so yeah, they needed a smaller set-up to let the story work better, it just pales beside the huge set-up that promised us.. more.
12/3/2012 8:59:14 PM
I hear you, I agree overall, and while I never really felt let down/cheated by the film (possibly because I went in being prepared to be) I do understand why many people were.I think it was Movie Bob, who I heard this from, (and I did do some research on my own, but couldn't find much more) but originally, the script did build up to Merida fighting and presumably taking down the ancient cursed bear.Again it didn't bother me personally, but given how many people feel that same let down your talking about, it seems clear to me that a failing of the rewrite was that they kept the thematic elements building to that confrontation, but never gave them a true pay off. Since in the finished version Merida never has that confrontation in the same way as it was originally written. All just a hypothesis of course. Oh, incidentally, Movie Bob is the reason I started watching your vids, and then by extension other shows and reviewers on this site. A while back he'd posted on his blog, encouraging followers/viewers to check your show out. (Pretty sure I've seen all the other vids on your blip channel too by now.) I'm more partial to reviews that make me think, so vids like yours and Linkara's (many others here and on TGWTG too of course) are definitely the type I'm most happy to see.Just wanted to let you know :)
12/3/2012 9:14:29 PM
... what happened to that other version? .. why wasn't that good enough? I would really have liked to see that. But, yarp, I think you hit the nail right on the head right there. That is probably exactly what happened! And thanks! Aww MovieBob, still can't believe he would do that, what actually happened was that he made a post about N-chick and how you should all support women on the net, to which I responded in the comment section. "Urhm.. in that case.. female reviewer on the Agony Booth, right here.. I make videos.. hey." And he made a post about me. Hehe, I follow movie-bobs videos, I like him a lot. And of cause I also follow Linkara the NC ext X) I'm so glad you are enjoying my work, I have a lot of fun making it!
12/3/2012 11:53:40 PM
as to the what might have been Brave script apparently the original direction of the film was by one person who does get credit and the 2 other people credited rewrote it for the new direction, not sure why (maybe the old was just action movie w/o family or she wasn't meeting deadlines, like I said tried to find out but didn't turn up much)Yeah, no I've seen lots of NC, NChick, Todd, MarzGurl etc too. But Linkara may be the reviewer I'm most entertained by, just because of how much I agree with all that he has to say about the super-hero genre, comics etc. though I'm not nearly as into comics as him and I do like Marvel better than DC ;)Conversely I love watching SFDebris, even though I don't always agree, I'm always very entertained :)The fun you have making these vids definitely comes across in the final product, and makes it all the more enjoyable to see!
12/4/2012 8:02:35 AM
huh.. I would honestly love to get a look on that first draft, it's not uncommen for Disney to change every-thing in pre-production like that. The Emperors new groove was originally a compleately different movie, but.. yeah.. this is one where the failed transition became to obvious and flawed, unfortunately.. it does feel like we gained a movie merely good instead of that great movie that's hiding some-where in the corners.. but is not the movie we got. I really like SfDebris as well, he really follows the same rule that I do, I have an opinion, it's my own opinion and you don't have to share it, how-ever, I will argue for my opinion. Never say that any-thing is just bad, but argue why it's so. He's a really smart guy and I do feel like I learned a lot from him by just watching his videos :)
12/5/2012 4:53:59 PM
Agreed, though again I like what we got.Also agreed on SfDebris, I especially loved the religion=faith, Science=/=faith analysis in the most recent vid, and the G-d (Sistine chapel pic) talking to Moses (10 commandments pic) was of course hilarious (no surprise there, his talking over still pictures is always great, especially "The League of Starship Captains")
12/1/2012 11:55:50 AM
Wow, muthsarah seems pretty opinionated about this particular review, I've never seen a reply longer than Sofie's before...Anyhow great review, that 1970's style animation is really a bit jarring compared to what I'm used to, but it's a different era after all. It's like trying to watch Wizards, Watership Down, and Journey Back to Oz. 80s Animation I'm used to and can tolerate 90s animation (although at times, Spider-Man, Avengers and Iron Man in their 1994 series...not so good) but the animation nowadays is top notch, no studio puts out bad animation anymore, even if it's a style that isn't that appealing; in it's own universe, the animation is top notch.And a final note, I'm sure the Lord of the Rings movie doesn't fare as well with an animated movie recap as the Hobbit does...
12/1/2012 12:24:20 PM
Oh, I rant about everything. If you're gonna vomit up your thoughts, get it all out. But the LotR films are my big sore spot. They're great, but they're not as great as I think they easily could have been. They came so close to perfection, but fell just short. Therefore, I hate them. :p
12/1/2012 12:27:45 PM
you do sound like a person set on not liking the hobbit because. "It'll be good but NOT GOOD ENOUGH!"easy, we are not at military camp, it's escapism..But I get it some people have that one big weak spot they love so much that they want to protect it at all cost, and for you, that is the lord of the rings books, I am absolutely certain you had a very big exsperience reading them at some point, and that's great, rock on. But.. the movies wont destroy the books, they'll keep them alive. so.. yeah.
12/1/2012 3:00:02 PM
Normally, I would blast this sort of thinking of: "It wasn't perfect in my eyes, therefore it sucks! Go die in a fire you time-waster!" But what kind of hypocrite would that make me since I moan about a sports team who I like or support spending millions on a player who ends up doing absolutely nothing, scoring no goals and not contributing to a team's successes? Quite a big one, but that's a different area entirely. I'd prefer to cherry pick good stuff than bad stuff from what I see. You'd probably tell me to stop acting like such a pussy and criticise every bad thing about it but I just don't think that way all the time.
12/1/2012 4:46:40 AM
I like the filming/editing job when you kidnapped yourself. Very nicely done.
12/1/2012 7:40:23 AM
12/1/2012 12:52:20 AM
"Hobbit mad?" Was that deliberate?If you want to fully appreciate the new respec-...well, privil-...umm...no, that's not quite right either. If you want to fully appreciate the new lucrative position that geek culture is in today, you have to understand the ghetto that it was stuck in until maybe ten years ago. Imagine being a Tolkien fan BEFORE it was cool, before everyone and their grandmother ran out to see the latest geeky flick. Before the new Star Trek movie, before the new Battlestar Gallactica. It's not a pretty picture most of the time, fun as it can be, but that's where today's pop culture comes from.Nowadays, even lesser-known adaptations of popular books get $150 million or more invested in them, to afford high-end effects necessary to make the story and its world palatable to new audiences. This movie was made on a budget of nothing, back when even the best animation was ugly as hell (I am SOOOO happy to have missed the 1970s), because there was almost no audience for it, and, short of that, no way to make it appealing to general audiences who didn't want to see "children's stories". But I still grew up in the early and mid 1990s, before the LotR films and Harry Potter made geeky stories cool and mainstream, and I remember wanting to love these cheaply-made movies, even though they were already horribly dated. But that's all there was. Star Wars was popular, but everything else in the fantasy genre was cheap and unpopular, stuck in the ghetto.I'm currently re-reading The Hobbit for the first time since I was eight, and I'm amazed at just how simple, childish and old-fashionedly fairy tale it feels (maybe that's how I was able to read it back then). It's closer in tone and pacing to the short tales of Grimm and Perrault, or to the simple mythologies you'd find in big picture books for kids, than it is to the LotR books. Wizards have big long white beards and pointy hats, because by definition, that's what wizards always look like. Dwarves are ever-jolly and bearded, and always look old. Goblins and trolls capture people and plan to boil them in giant cauldrons (allowing them the chance to escape) rather than just try to kill the heroes on sight. Monsters talk, squabble, and generally act silly instead of being scary. There's nothing resembling the "darkness" or "seriousness" of modern fantasy stories, the kind that tell the same old simple adventure stories, but are deathly afraid to come off as kids' stuff. Everyone sings little rhyming songs, even the bad guys, because those were big parts of old folk tales. In general, everything is light and fun, meant to entertain, put a smile on the face of the audience, not to scare them.You could NEVER make a movie like this anymore. The main hero today ALWAYS has to be brooding, his most important friends have to be stoic and grim, the bad guys have to be nasty and scary, and, above all, everything has to look and feel "REAL". The audience wants fantasy that isn't fantasy, something gritty and realistic and easily identifiable to their lives, or else they'll think it's just little kids' stuff. The LotR books could translate this way to the screen (one reason I hated all the stupid jokes Jackson threw in) because the book is very long, detailed, slow-paced, serious, an epic by every means. Not light and breezy. Not remotely whimsical. The LotR was modern fantasy long before modern fantasy existed. But The Hobbit? It feels like a kids' story today. It feels like an old story, like a fairy tale.Which is great, for variety's sake. But I know it would and could never catch on with general audiences that way. You couldn't make an old-fashioned story anymore. The new movie is going to feel nothing like the book, nothing like the old fairy tale of The Hobbit. At least this old movie is still around as a time capsule, to those curious about what fantasy was like before Harry Potter and Jackson's LotR. I think it'd be worth it for a fan of the new movies to see it and try to stretch their brain around trying to figure out how movies like this actually had a small audience that liked it, warts and all. A lot has changed, though, and this movie's a harder sell than ever.
12/1/2012 2:56:18 AM
The beauty of The Hobbit (the novel, that is) is that it did start as a simple, archetypal children's fantasy tale but it morphs and changes as it goes into a more adult tale, clearly providing a bridge between fantasy and fairy tales of youth and the modern adult fantasy novel that Tolkien ushered in (imo) with LotR. This is a critical element that Rankin/Bass missed- those adaptations were made as kids cartoons, period. I will be thrilled if PJ pulls of the same sort of stylistic evolution over the course of his trilogy (which seems excessive, but we'll see). He certainly has an opportunity.
12/1/2012 3:20:26 AM
I don't think it's possible for Jackson to form that kind of thematic bridge over the new Hobbit Trilogy, since the LotR films started off on the other side of that bridge already, and its both unnecessary and commercially risky (therefore, Hollywoodically impossible) to start back on the other side of it, with the light-hearted silliness and naivitee/non-grittiness of Olden Tymes Fantasie. The expectations have already been set. The financiers, the producers, the audience all expect the Lord of the Rings again, with the same serious, epic feel. They just expect a prequel, with Bilbo instead of Frodo, with some dwarves instead of humans and an elf, and with a dragon instead of a giant flaming eye.The best he can manage is to start off in a familiar vein to the earlier films (because he won't have songs, joviality and stuff, not these days) with familiar characters in a familiar setting, but still with the serious LotR-feel, telling a story even those who only know the LotR films pretty much already know (Hobbit-thing goes on adventure, encounters Gollum, Gandalf's there, blah blah, big fantasy adventure), and end up where the LotR movies started (in the Shire with Bilbo and Frodo). In other words, doing basically what the Star Wars prequels should have done, only with the very strong added benefit that this "Prequel Trilogy" was made at about the same time as the "Original Trilogy", with the same cast, with the same filmmakers, with the same special effects, art direction, and overall feel. In (still other) other words, creating a pair of trilogies that could be watched in chronological order without any aesthetic inconsistencies. In that sense, I expect this new trilogy to hew extremely closely to the old one, and to veer pretty heavily from the source material.
12/1/2012 8:02:23 AM
I guess we'll see, I really don't know, but looking at the lord of the rings movies, there were definetely a build up, the first movie, were the smaller more compact movie, there was only one big scene, the run inside of minis tirith, and it felt compact and merely a build-up to some-thing bigger, the second went insane with the night battle of Rohan, but tampered with the hobbits walking through the swamp, the third movie. big big BIG! wauw. So well, chances are this will be sort of the same, the first movie probably is just going to be the backpack trip the movie, just like the first two thirds of the book, people are probably are going to complain about that, but I digress, my standards are very clear. "Did it entertain me or not? did I ever feel bored by it?" I don't know yet, but come on, give me these twelve days, i'll tell all of you people first thing right here on this site ;)
12/1/2012 7:58:25 AM
yep, that was deliberate, who knew, I can have a really bad sense of humour to, but question, did it made you chuckle? if so, I see no reason why I shouldn't have done it. And well, urhm.. I all-ready adressed a sort of similiar issue in my lord of the rings legacy hunting video, where yeah, I talked much more about the story behind the story of things, how Lord of the rings is a work of fiction that actually changed pop-culture and how the movies made fantasy main stream and actually is the sole reason we have had at least one big fantasy movie a yeah. Of cause that has escalated even more these later years mainly because of the huge baffling success of twilight, that has made books and books adaptations not only acceptbale, but cool among the huge mainstream audience. All though I will have to disagree with Harry potter falling in the category of brooding people, he does started out as a wide-eyed eleven year old whom dreams of flying motor cycles ya know, and one of his main characteristics in personality is about how shy and humble he is, that he runs away from cameras is a consistent character trait through-out all books, that's cute.. of cause as the books moves along, he grows older and the pressure grows, he eventually comes down with stress (who can blame him?) but then over-comes it, and well, at that point the books just grew. I also love how down-right old school the hobbit feels, I love how Bilbo is as a character, ones again, a smaller humble person whom just secretly wishes he could see more of the world, but doesn't want glory or to be king or any-thing, he just wants to try life off a little more, and he keeps on being polite, nice and down to earth while not being the greatest fighter of all of them.. I would really like a female main character like that... SORRY! but I would. a female main character whom is nice, humble and likable instead of those brutes we see all around, i've said it for a while, I think the world needs a female hobbit type. And yeah.. fuck that things should feel real, why doesn't Guilmoro del-toro make more fantasy movies??? D: But as to the new movie.. I don't know! maybe it'll actually feel like an old-school fairytale with call-backs to the lord of the rings. Peter Jackson is a life long fan you know, whom grew up with the books and really wants to do them justice. Martin Freeman is one of the cosiest looking actors ever, you just see a picture of him and goes. "Man, he looks like a nice person!" or. "When did a spaniard mutate into a human being?" in either case, Freeman as Bilbo is the best casting choice I have ever heard off ever, and all-ready know I want to say, if every-thing else falls flat in the movie, I am convinced it'll be worth some-thing just because of him as Bilbo Baggins.
12/1/2012 8:59:05 AM
"yep, that was deliberate, who knew, I can have a really bad sense of humour to, but question, did it made you chuckle? if so, I see no reason why I shouldn't have done it."Ya never can tell. Idioms are among the hardest things you encounter when learning a second language. Or so I hear. Not that I know anything about that. Monolingual Amurican that I am. It didn't make me chuckle, but it did make me groan in an not-unpleasant way. When someone you like breaks out a friggin' pun, whaddya gonna do? You can't laugh, but you don't want to react negatively either."And well, urhm.. I all-ready adressed a sort of similiar issue in my lord of the rings legacy hunting video, where yeah, I talked much more about the story behind the story of things, how Lord of the rings is a work of fiction that actually changed pop-culture and how the movies made fantasy main stream and actually is the sole reason we have had at least one big fantasy movie a yeah. Of cause that has escalated even more these later years mainly because of the huge baffling success of twilight, that has made books and books adaptations not only acceptbale, but cool among the huge mainstream audience."TWILIGHT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TOLKIEN!!! YOU SHUT YOUR GODDAM---*ahem*Umm...yeah. You don't deserve that. You were probably talking about something else, but...umm....well...yeah...whatever.There's good fantasy that stood for something real, which has stood the test of time, and which has actually meant something, and there's shallow cash-in fantasy that condescends to the reader and is meant to proselytize. LotR/Hobbit is in one category, and Twilight...isn't. That's all I'm gonna say about that.(And, FWIW, I think Harry Potter is far more responsible for Twilight than Tolkien is, but whatever...I'm not saying anything. Nothing at all. Nope....)"I also love how down-right old school the hobbit feels, I love how Bilbo is as a character, ones again, a smaller humble person whom just secretly wishes he could see more of the world, but doesn't want glory or to be king or any-thing, he just wants to try life off a little more, and he keeps on being polite, nice and down to earth while not being the greatest fighter of all of them.. I would really like a female main character like that... SORRY! but I would. a female main character whom is nice, humble and likable instead of those brutes we see all around, i've said it for a while, I think the world needs a female hobbit type."The reluctant hero is a bit unusual these days (though the brooding hero is not). LotR even downplayed Frodo's reluctance, making him almost immediately into a noble figure, even though he was almost desperate at the start to give the ring to Gandalf and have nothing more to do with the matter. Having just started to re-read The Hobbit, I now understand that Bilbo's own reluctance was very, very minimalized in the novel itself, far more than Frodo's even. Even if Jackson adapts that faithfully (which I, being a hopeless, one-note geek caricature, must fully endorse), it would start the story off by making him itching for adventure. I just pray, really pray, that the nine-hour running time is going to allow him plenty of time to establish Bilbo's life in Hobbiton and his reluctance to leave. I...*wince*...actually wouldn't mind if he...EXPANDED...on this part of the story. If only because they only spend maybe 40 pages in the Shire (20 of them eating dinner), and then 20 pages after that, they're already at the Misty Mountains. The first part of the book is really rushed, and if Jackson pads it anywhere, I hope he pads it there. I feel horrible saying this, but that's the one part of the books (all of them that I've read) where Tolkien left a lot of room to be improved upon. I think the audience, and the story, would be well-served in learning just what exactly Bilbo is so reluctant to leave. How blissful is his life at home? Why would he, on so many occasions during his "adventure", be so desirous of going back home and staying there forever? If you want the audience to feel for a character, let us know what he knows. Let us know what he loves, and what he misses when away for the first time.I too would love to see more female main characters. But the current zeitgeist in movies is to adapt already-known works (none of which have prominent female characters), not to make new ones which might actually reflect current reality. And Hollywood, as ever, is very, very conservative. Though, I must admit, I would be outraged if they introduced a female character in The Hobbit just to have one. That would smack of pandering, and I already hated what they did with Arwen. Tell the story faithfully, even if it's not exactly modern or all-inclusive. If you want a story with modern concepts to build on, write a new story. Changing classical works is insulting to those who love them, even if they are a bit outdated."And yeah.. fuck that things should feel real, why doesn't Guilmoro del-toro make more fantasy movies??? D:"Del Toro has yet to direct a major Hollywood success story. No one who matters cares what he does or thinks, sadly. Even Pan's Labyrinth wasn't a big hit here. The audience has spoken: they want "fantasy" set in the real world, with entirely relatable characters doing entirely believable things in entirely believable settings. High fantasy it is not."But as to the new movie.. I don't know! maybe it'll actually feel like an old-school fairytale with call-backs to the lord of the rings. Peter Jackson is a life long fan you know, whom grew up with the books and really wants to do them justice. Martin Freeman is one of the cosiest looking actors ever, you just see a picture of him and goes. "Man, he looks like a nice person!" or. "When did a spaniard mutate into a human being?" in either case, Freeman as Bilbo is the best casting choice I have ever heard off ever, and all-ready know I want to say, if every-thing else falls flat in the movie, I am convinced it'll be worth some-thing just because of him as Bilbo Baggins."Though I wish it were so, I'm old enough now to never again let my guard down again like I did with The Phantom Menace, LotR, or any other major production. The producers of these films don't aim for geeks like us. They don't aim for fans of the source material. They take us all for granted, assuming we'll pay good money no matter what, and just aim to rope the know-nothings out there into joining in. The ones who want every action movie to feel like Die Hard and every fantasy to feel like Star Wars, no exceptions. That's where the money is. The example set by the LotR, at the very least, dispells me of any illusions I have about how the new trilogy will feel. I would be shocked if it felt any different, despite the far, far lighter tone of the novel.I hope Jackson resists the urge to make call-forwards to the LotR films. I would hope, if nothing else, that the movies work when watched in chronological order. The LotR books don't make as much sense if you haven't read The Hobbit, so the LotR films should also benefit from the viewer already knowing something of the Hobbit trilogy. If they tip their hat to stuff that hasn't already happened (even if it has, IRL) it would detract from the integrity of the story. Don't spoil things. Don't introduce characters before they were meant to be introduced. Just tell the story. The Hobbit. The 280 page story. In nine hours. In nine goddamn hours....Good god, how are they ever to pass all that time. How many cliffs is Thorin gonna hafta fall off of to fill up all that time?And..."when did a spaniard mutate into a human being". I...hope that got lost in translation somewhere....That...doesn't sound right....
12/1/2012 9:53:44 AM
Well, sorry, it happens, and it'll probably happen again in my show. I think what this bad pun spun from though is that I just required the DVD of the newest show by a Danish Comedian group I grew up with and love deeply, and a huge part of their act, which they in my opinion manages to deliver so well, are constant bad puns like this delivered with a smirk, just.. constantly. "I've got a secret admire, his name is Don." "John?" "No, Don. Don Dildo." "Oh i've heard of him." "Yeah he sticks his head in where he can get to it." Their humour can't possible get any sillier, it's so out there and sillie that it turns right around and becomes hillarious, but dammit, I love it, and i'm sorry if you don't share that sense of humour as it leaps into my own work, but I can't help it. What I mean with the twilight thing is how that phenoma had the direct effect on the media today, meaning that is the force behind all of those big budget book adaptations constantly being made, and the main-stream now thinking it's cool going watching that. No I do not like Twilight, but you cannot deny the massive effect it has on cinema these days, and a lot of the stuff we exsperience now are direct after effects of that thing. Maybe you don't have the same love of the lord of the rings movies that I do, but I do have a great love for them. To me, they are my childhood, seeing them for the first time as merely an eleven year old in cinema, they were unlike any-thing I have ever seen, I was gaping and enthralled, and it felt like such a huge exsperience at the time, as I look back, that feeling still holds up, and as I re-watch the movies today.. again, it still holds up! I wouldn't want to change a thing about those movies. And personally, also having been in this game for a while and been in that cynic phase where nothing is good enough. I chose not to dismiss things so quickly. Because I want to like this stuff, and I don't think there is such thing as the ultimate right when making movies, only different interpretations. If you like or don't like the interpretation made, that's up to you, but from what I've seen from this, it looks like some-thing I am going to enjoy a lot, and again, I don't see any reason to deny myself of good things and good exsperience because of dumb pride.
12/1/2012 11:09:37 AM
"i'm sorry if you don't share that sense of humour as it leaps into my own work, but I can't help it."Nonono, don't even think I want you to change on account of my narrow tastes. But the subject is Tolkien. AND TOLKIEN IS SERIOUS BUSINESS!:p"What I mean with the twilight thing is how that phenoma had the direct effect on the media today, meaning that is the force behind all of those big budget book adaptations constantly being made, and the main-stream now thinking it's cool going watching that. No I do not like Twilight, but you cannot deny the massive effect it has on cinema these days, and a lot of the stuff we exsperience now are direct after effects of that thing"I do not deny the profound impact the Twilight movies have had on the box office. But I'd rather not think about that, as I see it as another blemish on the state of modern moviemaking, not unlike the Elvis movie pandemic of the late 50s and 60s. It's big, it's unstoppable, but it ain't good. And it still owes more to Harry Potter than to Tolkien, given that Potter is a modern book series, whereas LotR is half a century old, had been in development hell for a long time, and had been seen as a major financial risk, whereas studios were fighting over the rights to secure the Potter flicks, a guaranteed success. And once Potter succeeded, that opened the floodgates for all sorts of other "epic" teen-lit fare. Including something about a pale, emotionless undead freak of nature and her vampire boyfriend."Maybe you don't have the same love of the lord of the rings movies that I do, but I do have a great love for them. To me, they are my childhood, seeing them for the first time as merely an eleven year old in cinema, they were unlike any-thing I have ever seen, I was gaping and enthralled, and it felt like such a huge exsperience at the time, as I look back, that feeling still holds up, and as I re-watch the movies today.. again, it still holds up! I wouldn't want to change a thing about those movies" Oh no, don't worry. I'm not judging you. I am envious, actually. I didn't LOVE those movies, even if I do think they got 90% of the books right, and were really impressive from a technical standpoint. I do dearly wish that I loved them, but the 10% stuff (AKA gratuitous stuff Jackson added) just irritated me so much that it ruined the whole experience for me. And it's my problem, not anyone else's. I love that you love them, and I'm happy that they found an audience. Bastardized versions that they--...nevermind. It's better that they found a big audience and that they didn't bomb, and that they helped to make geek culture more acceptable to the masses. My problem. Probably similar to how I hated the Hitchhikers' movie, because I read the book for the first time just hours before I saw it (it's a very quick read). My expectations were thus built around the book, the movie veered heavily from the book, therefore I didn't like the movie.If I had been eleven when I was first exposed to LotR, as you were, I am absolutely certain I would have loved the movies as you do. But I found the books first, and I really, REALLY took to them. Hard. Perhaps a little too much for my well-being. I think I may have been uniquely cursed by my date of birth. I was old enough to have read LotR as a book before the movies were even greenlit, old enough to have sought out the Rankin-Bass and Bakshi versions (even though I recognized how horribly dated they were), old enough to have watched old geek culture, assimilated it, and built my geeky tastes around it JUST before they all went mainstream. Therefore, just old enough to feel defensive about the changes and view them as heresy, but young enough that I took it so seriously at the time and as the memories are fresh with me as with you, I still do. At the very least, I can take comfort that I was just old enough to have hated The Phantom Menace upon its original release. Thank Ba'al for that.But if you love it, that's wonderful. I don't want to take that away from you. I do feel that the movies got so much of the books right, and were really very impressive, really better than I thought they would be. And despite my derision, I am quite impressed with the work Jackson and company did in putting together such a big and risky production. I just wish they had done a few tiny things differently, and I still can't accept why they couldn't just leave the story alone and not felt they needed to add modern conventional film touches to it."And personally, also having been in this game for a while and been in that cynic phase where nothing is good enough. I chose not to dismiss things so quickly. Because I want to like this stuff, and I don't think there is such thing as the ultimate right when making movies, only different interpretations.If you like or don't like the interpretation made, that's up to you, but from what I've seen from this, it looks like some-thing I am going to enjoy a lot, and again, I don't see any reason to deny myself of good things and good exsperience because of dumb pride."Well, even though you're younger than I am, it seems you're clearly more mature than I, or at least more adaptable. Though I would love to hear stories about you in your cynical phase. Tell me, is there anything in these movies that you don't like? I'm not trying to draw out your dark side. No, no, how silly that would be. I wouldn't. What an idea....I hope you enjoy the movies (I'm certain you will), and I hope I enjoy the movies. I will give them all a chance, of course. I'm not THAT dead inside. And, of course, I will look forward to your eventual Hobbit review, and I will hope that it's as comprehensive as possible (Vloggishly so). I think a big reason I like your vids so much is that you seem to love everything, or at least all the things I wish I loved. Like you're the happy little elf and I'm the dour, cynical goth elf who doesn't think anything is good enough. It's not a matter of pride, but of acceptance. Maybe I think I can pick up a few things from your vids.
12/1/2012 11:35:09 AM
Let it be known that I am NOT above dumb humour.. and yes, Lord of the rings! uh serious buisness! I'm okay with making cock jokes about politicians and the future of politics. But ELFS AND ORCS! ... serious buisness. I am sorry, but.. you walked into that one. yeah the lord of the rings have a larger older influence. As I talked about in my legacy hunting in the video, Tolkiens universe is obviously a direct pre-runner to all role-playing univers's such as Dungeon and Dragons, world of darkness and world of warcraft, and those are the things that has spawned into almost all modern "fantasy epics." in books and comics. Tolkiens universe has today become so synomenous with what an epic fantasy world is supposed to be, that it's just there the commonly known standard lays, and every-thing straying away from tolkien is the thing "Taking a new approach." When I say elf, what do people think off? they think of Legolas, the blond wise lord of the rings elf with a cross-bow.. the boring kind. When in reality, and elf is many different things, it was a genuine mythical creature in my country, but an evil creature, there's an evil elf king with several elf wifes whom looks like mist, but with grotesque holes in their backs, whom lures unfortunate traveling men out in swamps by dancing in front of them. That elf is just as genuine a real elf as the tolkien elf, but it's the tolkien elf we think about, and that's how big a deal he is. Potter of cause took another step by merging the old mystical world with a modern world. This isn't a new trick at all, it's been done many times before, but it's the first time it gained such a huge success and thereby opened a float guy for mainstream attention and a real potential for money making by the studios. My cynic phase.. Well, I refused to see Harry Potter and the Half-blood prince in cinema, simply refused. Because I felt the movies weren't true enough to the books and just not good enough, they weren't 'good enoug' for me and my love of harry potter. And I still maintain my conviction that the movies aren't as good as the books, but as the last movie came out I had to realise. "Urhm.. this is the last time ever, any-thing new, ever, is going to come out regarding this franchise that meant so much to me.. why exactly am I cheating myself out of this exsperience?" And I went watching it.. it was not the huge epic I could have hoped for, but I didn't entirely exspect it to be, and it was.. Okay. What was sweeter was just the cinema trip with my sister, her boy-friend and two other shared friends, and all the long talks after it, i'm glad I went it was a nice evening and a nice good-bye to this epic thing of my childhood.And I don't hate the movie, it happened, and now it's over, it never did any damage to my beloved potter, far from it, it raised awareness around the story and made people interested in go back reading the books, which I am happy for, because I think it's the bestest thing ever and want people to read it. I also had that phase.. oh that phase, every-body goes through. I do think it's funny how you can absolutely trace how deep people are into this movie reviewing phase measured on Tim Burton. First they discover Tim Burton, and then thinks he is just the greatest thing that happened ever, so innovative and stylish, such an messiah in movie making. Then they discover that.. that's not exactly true, and they become directly insulted as if Burton tricked them and insulted them personally, they start expressing genuine hate towards him and his workd, now feeling smarter for being about all those poor Burton fans. And then finally step three, you realise all of that was uncalled for and Burton is nothing else but a in the middle director, not amazingly great, not bad, just.. there some-where in the middle with streghts and weakness's, and that's where I am now. But boy oh boy, i've been through both phase 1 and 2 with Burton! I admit it, I discovered him, bought every single movie had made on DVD, discovered he aint always that great, got mad, particularly on new movies, and now realised how absolutely silly my behaviour has been. And... well, having tried to make videos, short movies and stage shows for myself. To have tried to write a story and gain a better understanding of what such a process feels like. How it's utterly unpredictable whether things works or not, you can try so hard, and just go for what you want, but some-times it just wont click, even though you tried so hard. And other times, things click without you havn't even thought about it. The process behind making, is so tough and weird that it makes it virtually impossible to hate other peoples passion projects afterwards. I can't stand sloppy work or a sloppy movie, but if there is some-thing I knew the Peter Jacksons lort is not.. it's that, and I know neither is the hobbit. Honestly, if you ever get the chance to work on a short film from start to finish, give it a go, it'll give you a whole new perspective of every-thing!
12/1/2012 12:14:38 PM
"Let it be known that I am NOT above dumb humour.. and yes, Lord of the rings! uh serious buisness! I'm okay with making cock jokes about politicians and the future of politics. But ELFS AND ORCS! ... serious buisness. I am sorry, but.. you walked into that one."The Lord of the Rings was my Harry Potter, and my feelings on the books vs. films are very similar to yours. That's how I'm gonna sum this up."And I went watching it.. it was not the huge epic I could have hoped for, but I didn't entirely exspect it to be, and it was.. Okay. What was sweeter was just the cinema trip with my sister, her boy-friend and two other shared friends, and all the long talks after it, i'm glad I went it was a nice evening and a nice good-bye to this epic thing of my childhood."I've found that even terrible movies can be made entertaining if you can get into a good discussion about what made them so bad. Online film reviews have only made this easier to enjoy, since they provide a wider circle of reasoned fan griping. It's always comforting to know that you're not alone in feeling a certain way, and that can make seeing a bad film worthwhile, since even a bad cinematic experience can be turned into a positive social experience. I'd like to think that's one reason why so many people see so many bad movies (so they can tear them apart afterwards), but I think I'm reaching a lil' bit there.And for the record, Half Blood Prince is tied for my favorite Potter flick. I did enjoy reading the books, and I don't like how the movies cut stuff out, but all things considered, I don't mind the changes. Then again, the Potter books were "just kids' stuff" to me, since I was 16 the first time I read one of them (when the first movie came out)."I also had that phase.. oh that phase, every-body goes through."How does one get out of that phase? I think I'm still stuck there."I do think it's funny how you can absolutely trace how deep people are into this movie reviewing phase measured on Tim Burton.First they discover Tim Burton, and then thinks he is just the greatest thing that happened ever, so innovative and stylish, such an messiah in movie making. Then they discover that.. that's not exactly true, and they become directly insulted as if Burton tricked them and insulted them personally, they start expressing genuine hate towards him and his workd, now feeling smarter for being about all those poor Burton fans."I've heard it said that the worst thing you can do to someone who loves you is to disappoint them, because it doesn't just hurt them to realize you're not so great, it makes them feel bad for ever loving you so much to begin with. That can cause someone to not just stop loving you, but to feel stupid for loving you. I think that's a big reason Burton's fans have (rightfully) felt so burned by him. People loved him, once upon a time. They felt that he spoke to their worldview, that he made films for them, and now they feel embarrassed to admit that, even to themselves. And they blame him for that realization, and for the insecurity that instills in them."Honestly, if you ever get the chance to work on a short film from start to finish, give it a go, it'll give you a whole new perspective of every-thing!"Honestly, the very thought of that terrifies me as few things do. I'm not a creator, I'm just a consumer. And I think I'm well aware of the limitations that places on my understanding and appreciation of art.
12/1/2012 12:35:53 PM
I can still poke a lot of fun of the harry potter books, and I have done, there's a lot to poke fun of in them! A lot. And Harry potter the musical is the greatest thing that have ever existed on youtube, ever. "Hufflpuffs are great finders!" "What the hell is a hufflepuff?" ".....*sits down*" hehe. "And hufflepuff." "FIND!" "What?" love a very potter musical, it's the greatest. I just call it the Tim Burton phase, and you can very often measure how pro people are at this reviewers thing if you ask them about Burton. If he can do no wrong, then the person asked is new at this and still very amazed by all the things you can pay attention to in a movie, but they are new at it. If they hate Tim Burton and he is the devil they are in the cynic phase, where they found out the tricks and found out movies aren't just all great, that it some-times sound cool to hate, and that movies not living up to your exspectations should burn in hell. If they answer, Burton can be oki but did mistakes, Ed Wood was amazing though, then you stand in front of a pro movie reviewer, whom been through the other two phases and discovered that yeah, you can be a cynic, you can also elect not to be, and look at the movies for what they are. Never said you had to go out and create a master piece of a short, but.. just try and sit down and write a story, a little fanfic no one else ever have to see, I swear it'll gain you a whole new perspective of things.
12/3/2012 7:44:31 AM
I'm not getting into this discussion, just wanted to ask if you've seen the old BBC miniseries of Hithhiker's? My dad introduced us to the unabridged books on tape, read by the author, we later got the BBC series and we love them all in my family.When we saw the more recent movie, my dad and I especially felt quite cheated (We'd actually bought the DVD not knowing how bad it was), but we agreed that there were exactly 2 redeeming things unique to the awful remake: Marvin firing the POV gun, and the Dolphins' song. Not that that gave us reason to ever watch it again.So anyway, yeah, hunt down the BBC version
12/3/2012 9:26:43 AM
I've seen the original BBC mini series, and I've read the book! How-ever.. I sort of like all three versions, meaning I like the book and the mini series and the new movie! I think the movie is quite good actually. Yeah there are things the mini series is doing better, but then there are other things the movie is updating and is doing better, both version have pros and cons to them if you ask me.
12/3/2012 9:05:46 PM
I'm glad you've gotten to see the miniseries and read the books.my main problem with the movie isn't even that it deviates from the books so much it's that none of those deviations really came across as in any way more funny (at least to me and my family; or in fact, anyone else I've talk to about it). Except for the two I mentioned. So I'd be very curious to hear what things you liked better in the more recent film version (not trying to spark debate, just genuinely curious).
12/3/2012 9:28:50 PM
Martin Freeman.. just.. Martin Freeman, all deliveries he makes. Also, Dolphin song is bloody awesome. The movie looks visually fantastic, and is much more vibrant than the BBC mini-show, which back in time, could end up looking kind of brown and dirty. Alan Rickman as the robot? that's funny to me, it really works in my book. Yeah some-times the movies feels more like an family action adventure than a comedy, but if you are willing to buy that, it's a very interesting vibrant world with visually interesting and engaging characters that just looks bloody great all the way through, and all in all, the movie is worth a watch for that, if you ask me.
12/3/2012 11:32:05 PM
I guess I have no choice but to agree on Martin Freeman, I do like Sherlock (though I kind of thought that in this film he didn't do a lot [as in wasn't very entertaining], that may just be the fault of the script), and yes Alan Rickman is a good casting for Marvin's voice. And we can certainly agree on the Dolphins, as we've both mentioned, it may be the most entertaining part of the film. I hear you on the visuals for the most part they work (though there were some that rubbed me the wrong way, it was certainly more vibrant). Overall as to my personal dislikes, I guess you summed it up well by saying that it became family action adventure rather than comedy which was certainly not what I was looking for from Douglas Adams related stuff. When the movie started kind of making the main character have a "hero's journey" and "get the girl" was probably where I gave up.Thanks for explaining and pointing out some things it did do right, oh and I thought of another thing I did like (even if not as well as the original) Ford Prefect coming up wheeling a cart of beers as a distraction for the people looking to knock down Arthur's house, it was a fun bit of "the world is ending anyway" humor :)
12/4/2012 12:22:26 AM
I have the feeling that the movie never had a chance of working.Since the book is not especially dialogue-heavy and has no pictures, its humor had to have a "tell not show" source. The narrator's descriptions of the strange and ironic nature of the universe was at least 90% of the humor, if not of the whole book. The humor didn't come from what Arthur or Ford did, it's in how we're told what's going on all around them, and about the funny circumstances that lead them by the nose through the fantastical story. They're not really characters, they're devices that serve the humor by giving it something to bounce off of. A very basic framework of a story that's really not about a story.Now, Stephen Fry is a god. I can't stress that point enough. He was the A-one best person to be the narrator, and as far as I am concerned, he would have been just fine playing every other role in addition. But he's not the star of the movie. Sure, fans of his (very likely to also be fans of the book) will show up for him. But nobody's ever going to make a major motion picture about a narrator, especially if he's not also the main character telling us his own story. So right away, a big part of the film's humor - and its exposition - has to come from Arthur, Ford, Trillian, and Zaphod, which, as I mentioned earlier, only have maybe 10% of the jokes if not 10% of the story. That's gonna require some massive stretching of the source material. If you didn't expand the story to give it a stronger narrative, the casual audience (who doesn't already know the style of humor) wouldn't have anything to latch onto. If you didn't re-package some of the jokes and give them to the characters themselves, you'd have to write all new ones. Either way, it's not going to have the feel of the book or be guaranteed to appeal to the book's fans.I do like what Sam Rockwell did with Zaphod. He was clearly trying hard to sell the material, and he succeeded in creating a funny character, even if it was one that didn't quite fit the feel of the book. Less zany alien and more "guy you knew in high school that never grew up". Arthur was a passive character in the movie, as he was the audience surrogate in a movie where the audience isn't expected to understand anything that's going on (without the narrator or maybe Ford explaining it to them), so he spends most of his time staring and/or screaming as the universe zips by around him. Ford just didn't work. He was all "tell, not show", explaining to Arthur (and the audience) what was going on. Unfortunately, that's a job better suited to the narrator, who can pause the action and set things up without having a character do it, which would either feel stilted, go by too quickly, or risk breaking the fourth wall. I felt that Mos Def was as confused as anyone about what was going on, and he just couldn't sell the material. Then again, I barely remember anything the character did in the book either; I don't think he made much of an impression on me. The less said about Trillian, the better. She was treated as nothing more than "the chick". Nothing funny about her, and the expanded rescue plot didn't fit the rest of the story AT ALL. Nothing against Zooey, but that character had nothing worthwhile to do.As much as I bitch about adaptations, I think Hitchhiker's is one of the best and easiest-to-explain examples of books that are absolutely unfilmable, unless you can play it completely faithfully. Unfortunately, there's no way you could faithfully adapt the book while also appealing to a mass audience. It's not popular literature (maybe in Britain it is, I dunno), and it doesn't even have the structure of popular literature. It's a story based around a bunch of jokes, made by a narrator, about how goofy the universe is. Observational humor about stuff that isn't even real. That's not gonna play to the masses, they want stories. Hitchhiker's is not a story. It's just a funny book.There was no way the film was going to work. I know some people like it (surprise surprise that Sofie managed it :p), but I've gotten the impression that most fans of the book did not like the movie, and neither did casual audiences. It was too different for the fans, and still too strange for the rest.
12/4/2012 7:20:35 AM
Well, what you absolutely cannot take away from a movie is that it god damn tries! Nothing here is ever half-assed, it really goes for it, it's never boring, it never halts and apologieses for its own excistence, it tries so hard to be the best it can be, which means the creators obviously tried so hard to make it the best they could, that can be felt, in every single scene.
12/5/2012 5:15:02 PM
Muthsarah, I can't find a reply button to your, or Sophie's last comments below, so posting up here again :)Muthsarah: In terms of it not working to translate Hitchhiker's to screen, I would strongly recommend watching that BBC series (I believe it covered the 1st 2 books) I found that it did so quite well. If memory serves the Narrator was Douglas Adams himself, and they used the guide itself often, just as in the book, to pull back from the characters and focus on the ridiculous tangents. And as far as Trillian; in the BBC one, Douglas Adams has said that he was at first against the actress, because she was not what he had in mind, but he found that the way she played the part was much funnier than anyone else could have been in that role. Another reason you really should check it out.Sophie: yes, they were definitely trying, unfortunately for me (and as we've both covered) they were trying in a completely different direction than I was tuning in for [shrugs]. That said your right if there is one thing in common with both it's that the cast (or at least I think it was true for the cast of the recent one) really committed to what they were doing. And in both cases it seems the production values are as good as the budget allows, whether it's the more old Doctor Who type budget of the BBC's one (with neon stencil-cartoons transitioning to the Guide's info), or the much more funded recent film with it's much bigger bolder and brighter visuals (+lots of CG)
12/1/2012 12:06:57 AM
It's not only you who's going Hobbit mad, it's getting mad hype in the UK and in two weeks time, it's gonna hit fever pitch. But that's just the situation by the time of this comment. I wait, that's what I do, tick follows tock follows tick.I do have to say that when I heard that opening song from this movie, I am reminded of the folk selection in my music collection and how relaxing and atmospheric a man, a guitar and a subtle arrangement of choir and strings can be and how much of a mood-changer it is. The animation looks a little rough, but I can overlook it due to a smaller budget than usual. That and the fact a precursor to Studio Ghibli animated this could only have been a sign of things to come.2012, quite a year considering we'll all be dead in three weeks(!) A few more requests to go or just one more?
12/1/2012 8:06:24 AM
Dead in a phew weeks? pff, that's what they said back at 6/6 2006 as well.. and then also new-year 2010.. and new-year 2012. Well, if the world is really going under at 12/12 2012, at least i'll die happy while watching the hobbit :Pyes, yes I get it a day before you people. Yeah I really like the music in this movie, and yeah the mini-scule budget shows, but dammit! this movie honestly tried so hard, and you can feel that, and because it honestly tries so much, it ends up becoming genuinly enjoyable, and I were suprises, I saw the pictures and exspected it to be a cheap cash in, clearly it is not, clearly this is a movie that cares.
12/1/2012 8:20:43 AM
And on Y2K and even in 1982. We've always had the doomsday looming over our heads but it's never come to pass. Oh well, here's to the rapture of 2015!I'm sure a good number of us will enjoy The Hobbit. Let's hope it's epicness matches the 1977 movie's sincerity.
12/1/2012 10:44:01 AM
Dead in three weeks? Meh, I had a good run of things.
Popular Right Now
All articles posted to the agony booth are the sole property of the author(s). Please do not copy/reproduce entire articles without permission. Screencaps from movies and TV shows are used for non-profit, fair use purposes of parody and commentary.
Star Trek and all related images and trademarks are the property of CBS Studios, Inc.
Reviewer icon artwork provided by Tai Porto, Aaron “McKnackus” Rivera, and Magdalen O’Reilly.