Quake3World

4days wrote:what did you think of the 3d (assuming you watched it in 3d)? almost tempted to go and see the hobbit just for the 48 frames/3d thing, but the running time put me off.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:Judd Apatow

GONNAFISTYA wrote:The Hobbit = 6/10 - It was a decent adventure film. The story was a complete shambles but enjoyable enough. Considering the last shot in the movie shows they're approximately 350 miles from their goal (the mountain far far holy fucking shit that's a long walk far away) I'm hoping the sequels aren't just a bunch of midgets walking.

seremtan wrote:

GONNAFISTYA wrote:Judd Apatow

is he the guy who invented 'mumblecore'?

sounds like a fag

LawL wrote:So you already knew about the connection between Thorin and Azog did you dipshit?

He is referred to in a single remark of Gandalf's in The Hobbit: "Your grandfather Thror was killed, you remember, in the mines of Moria by Azog the Goblin."

List_of_Middle-earth_Orcs wrote:He precipitated the War of the Dwarves and Orcs in T.A. 2790 by killing King Thrór [..] In the following years, he was the common enemy of all Dwarves [..] the war he started climaxed in the Battle of Azanulbizar, where he killed Náin, but while fleeing back to the gates of Moria he was caught and beheaded by Náin's son Dáin.

U4EA wrote:It's in the book ..

U4EA wrote:.. though of course it had to be explained in the film.

LawL wrote: Irrelevant. Not to mention the majority of people seeing the movie wouldn't have read the book. Even so, it wouldn't make sense to not explain the backstory between the two characters whether it was in the book or not.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:Could be. I never heard the term before and had to look it up. From the descriptions it's not far off base with Judd Apatow movies: there's a vague script and every scene is basically ad-libbed out-takes and they pick the best take and use it in the movie and then somehow try to tell a story with all these ad-libbed scenes..it's fucking retarded. It's worse than an Adam Sandler production.

U4EA wrote:*vid*

menkent wrote:that's because Azog wasn't even a character in the book so much as a name mentioned once in passing... but in dividing one book into three movies they realized movie #1 didn't have an easily identifiable villain to fill in some cookie-cutter Hollywood Action so what had been a random comment along the likes of "Orcs are dicks." "Totally, bra. Like that one that killed your gwamps." is suddenly half the movie. Instead of them running into a few orcs, as happens from time to time, they're being hunted by Azog the one-armed dwarf raper of legend. The only thing that needed explanation about the subplot was why they included/invented it in the first place.

LawL wrote:What an utter load of shit. Movies don't include an explanation as to why a Director/writer/whoever decided to include a particular character, but audiences do need to understand what a major character's significance is to the story. Without this understanding it just wouldn't make sense. You're just being a cunt.