Rate them:
1. The Desolation of Smaug 5/10
2. An Unexpected Journey 4/10
3. The Battle of the Five Armies 2/10
Sopranos - Breaking Bad - The Wire
I'll play along, why not:
1. AUJ - 6/10
2. BotFA - 4/10
3. DoS - 3/10
An Unexpected Journey 7/10.
The Desolation of Smaug 8/10.
The Battle of the Five Armies 6/10.
AUJ 5/10
DOS 7/10
TBotFA 3/10 - yuck
AUJ: 10/10
DoS: 10/10
BotFA: 8/10
An Unexpected Journey - 9.7/10
The Desolation of Smaug - 8/10
The Battle of the Five Armies - 8/10
AUJ 8/10
DOS 9.5/10
BOFA 8.5/10
AUJ: 10/10
DOS: 10/10
BOTFA: 10/10
who could honestly be so dumb to give any other these a rating above 8, hell even 7..
9s i would only reserve for the best of the best, pinnacles of filmaking.
such as the classics that paved the way like casablance and citizen kane, to more modern classics like the godfather, casino, goodfellas etc...
damn some people are so easily entertained by these dangling string excuses for movies.
to me they all get around a 5, with AUJ maybe a 6..
for me a 5/10 isnt a fail, it just means it was mediocre in almost everyway.. mediocre cgi, mediocre characters, mediocre score. it wasnt new or innovative in any way.
It seems that diversity is a problem for you and that you can't accept the fact the people don't love the same movies. How sad.
But there is a reason why that the Hobbit movies were some of the highest grossing movies of 2012, 2013 and 2014, and that the same goes for the DVD's and Blu-rays. For tens of millions of moviegoers worldwide these movies are very good or even great/fantastic movies.
That doesn't mean that YOU have to like them. And it certainly doesn't mean that people who like the Hobbit movies are "dumb". No, it just means that there is something for everybody. You don't like this kind of movie, and that's alright. But it's not necessary to call other people "dumb", just because they have a different taste than you.
But there is a reason why that the Hobbit movies were some of the highest grossing movies of 2012, 2013 and 2014, and that the same goes for the DVD's and Blu-rays. For tens of millions of moviegoers worldwide these movies are very good or even great/fantastic movies.
It seems that diversity is a problem for you and that you can't accept the fact the people don't love the same movies. How sad.
if you want to have some legitimacy you can say "i love this movie! but i know it has some flaws and isnt one of the best movies"Or to say it another way: "This film has its flaws, some of them even serious, but I don't care; there are other things that makes it one of my favorite movies!" That is a perfectly valid and reasonable position.
Or to say it another way: "This film has its flaws, some of them even serious, but I don't care; there are other things that makes it one of my favorite movies!" That is a perfectly valid and reasonable position.
agreed, every movie has its flaws, some more than others.
every film is made up of the same components,diagetic sound, non diagetic sound, characters, sets, cinematography, editingm lighting etc, but some films have been ground breaking in various of these techniques, or incorporated established ones but done all these things in such a well done way that they are called the classics and masterpieces..
i can literally only thing of 10 films id ever give a 9 or a 10.
as i always say i like dragonball Z, but i know in reality its maybe a 4-5.5/10. I can say i love it and personally think its great, but i know it really isnt objectively or compared to other anime..
some people have problems splitting more subjective opinion, from more objective (while still subjective) analysis. or in the case of BN, have no knowledge what so ever about any sort of objective analysis or filmic techniques.. and calls a shot with a green filter/tint "masterful green lighting"
But what if a person doesn't feel that a film has any flaws? What if the film represents everything he loves about cinema?
Please tell me why THAT isn't "a perfectly valid and reasonable position"?
People are different and they love different things.
BN, you are certainly also allowed to feel the film represents everything you love about cinema and can certainly feel that they are the top 3 films ever created (saying it has no flaws is not reasonable, EVERY film has flaws). That is perfectly reasonable.
However, using that same logic, then people who DISlike the films can reasonably feel that they are very flawed and everything disappointing about (modern) cinema. Yet, you consistently counter-argue and provoke people who criticize the film, usually with the strategy of saying their position is unreasonable. I am not talking about Ambien because I understand your gripe with him is his personal attacks...but I've seen posts that were not personal in any way (never mind directed at you specifically)where you have made comments that more or less infer that someone's opinion is wrong. You do it with more subtlety than the anti-Jackson folks, but you still try to discredit anti-Hobbit opinions. That is no different, in essence, than what people who attack you are doing. They are just being more blatent and some are being meaner about it. You'll never admit it, because you like to play the victim card frequently (and, yes, in some cases understandably), but you purposely, and without provocation, prod the bull a lot...then ignore the hypocrisy of it.
The people who disagree with you may have different (and unnecessary) methods, but their intentions are the same as yours...
I will add, in the spirit of my response to you, an amendment to my original rankings above as they were a bit too harsh in some cases:
AUJ - 6/10
This is the only film that really felt like it retained the spirit of Middle-Earth and felt more organic (albeit slightly) than the other two. I also think the music and themes in this movie were the best. Therefore, I think it was on the higher end-of average.
TBoFA - 4.5/10
It served it's purpose as an action movie, and most action movies are average in regards to actual film quality. However, it didn't have the feel of a Middle-Earth movie, but rather just an action movie set in Middle-Earth. It also did not do well with the resolution phase of the trilogy (fixed to a degree in the EE)so I think it's on the lower end of average.
DoS - 5/10
I'm probably still bitter over the horrendous adaption of the Smaug-Bilbo dialogue and jabbing this movie harder than I should...but I think it is right at average.
and can certainly feel that they are the top 3 films ever created
saying it has no flaws is not reasonable, EVERY film has flaws
Yet, you consistently counter-argue and provoke people who criticize the film, usually with the strategy of saying their position is unreasonable.
You do it with more subtlety than the anti-Jackson folks, but you still try to discredit anti-Hobbit opinions. That is no different, in essence, than what people who attack you are doing. They are just being more blatent and some are being meaner about it.
You'll never admit it, because you like to play the victim card frequentl
No, not every film has flaws - it's true that MOST films have. Some films just work 100 % in every respect, whether we talk about plot, acting, pacing, photography, effects, sound and music. That's why they win awards or become classics or blockbusters or all-time favorites. ... And let's not forget, that what one person sees as a "flaw", the other might see as a QUALITY. That explains why some people dislikes Bob Dylan's hoarse, high-pitched voice, while others love it. And it's no different when it comes to films.Okay, this is a weak argument considering that Peter Jackson's Hobbit films have earned few awards and you might literally be the only person who has ever stated that these films "work 100 % in every respect". The most you can say is that they work this way for you (not that there's anything wrong with that).
Okay, this is a weak argument considering that Peter Jackson's Hobbit films have earned few awards
you might literally be the only person who has ever stated that these films "work 100 % in every respect".
bn, you are being far too literal. I was not referring to you using those specific, exact words; I meant the intent behind your words.
I note here that few (if any) of these folks have heaped an equal amount of praise upon all of the films. And even someone giving a 10/10 rating can have at least a few quibbles. I'm sorry to say that professional film critics are not always honest in their reviews and often have to be taken with a grain of salt. I won't accuse these particular reviewers of being in the pockets of studio marketing departments, but you seldom really know for sure. That said, of course some viewers and critics love these films more than others, while there are also those who despise them. I at least like the Hobbit trilogy, just not nearly as much as I had hoped to.
"Hell hath no fury like that of the uninvolved." - T. Isabella
"Just to be sure that we understand each other: I do NOT think, that they are "the top 3 films ever created".
- I know. I never said you did. I just said it would be okay if you felt that way
"No, not every film has flaws - it's true that MOST films have. Some films just work 100 % in every respect, whether we talk about plot, acting, pacing, photography, effects, sound and music"
- Sorry, but no. This is where you allow yourself to lose credibility. Nothing in this world is perfect. I know what you will say "perfect is in the eyes of the beholder", but this can only apply to things that are completely abstract. Movies are not abstract as they have concrete and realistic processes that can be messed up. But even if movies can be perfect, it still doesn't detract from my overall point.
"Completely false. I don't "provoke" people. If the infamous Hobbit-trilogy-"haters" feel that a contradiction is the same as a provocation, there's definitely something wrong with their attitude. I chose to defend the Hobbit films, because I thought that the vocal minority (aka the Hobbit trilogy-"haters") could use a little counteraction, so the discussion didn't get too one-sided."
- Willful naivety of your actions again... you most certainly provoke people, you just do it underhandedly and then pass it off as "I thought the vocal minority could use a little counteraction". You are admitting that you are arguing for the mere sake of arguing which is the textbook definition of provocation. You know perfectly well the kind of reaction you are causing....no differently than the type of reaction the anti_hobbit folks know they are causing. You are both the two sides of the same coin...it's just that your side is less rusty.
"But I have ALWAYS maintained, that there is no right or wrong when it comes to films"
- Yes, you add that you your posts after making pointed concrete statements about how the Hobbit films are the best. It would be like me going up to a girl at the bar, calling her ugly, then telling her "but hey, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so no worries". Somehow that last disclaimer means she shouldn't get upset at my analysis of her looks?
"There is nothing to admit. And no, it has never been a question of being a "victim". All I ever wanted, was a friendly and tolerant tone without name-calling and personal attacks. And it remains an unsolved mystery why certain "anti-Jackson folks" (as you call them) simply couldn't write a post without adding those things."
- I'm with you on the friendly, tolerant tone. I have defended you before as well, so I support your general idea of how the boards should be (even though I am certainly guilty of being less than friendly and tolerant) and I certainly support your view on certain people here since I have also butted heads with them...I just think there is not as much innocence on either side of the Hobbit argument as is being made. I don't agree with the crap you've dealt with, though. But hey, it seems like in a couple of weeks, it will all be (ent) moot.
I meant to say "yes, you add that to your posts after...." in my 4th response....
share- Sorry, but no. This is where you allow yourself to lose credibility. Nothing in this world is perfect. I know what you will say "perfect is in the eyes of the beholder", but this can only apply to things that are completely abstract. Movies are not abstract as they have concrete and realistic processes that can be messed up. But even if movies can be perfect, it still doesn't detract from my overall point.
you are admitting that you are arguing for the mere sake of arguing which is the textbook definition of provocation.
You know perfectly well the kind of reaction you are causing...
- Yes, you add that you your posts after making pointed concrete statements about how the Hobbit films are the best. It would be like me going up to a girl at the bar, calling her ugly, then telling her "but hey, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so no worries". Somehow that last disclaimer means she shouldn't get upset at my analysis of her looks?
But hey, it seems like in a couple of weeks
This is how I personally define "perfect" when it comes to films:
No, not every film has flaws - it's true that MOST films have. Some films just work 100 % in every respect, whether we talk about plot, acting, pacing, photography, effects, sound and music
That's why they win awards or become classics or blockbusters or all-time favorites. ... And let's not forget, that what one person sees as a "flaw", the other might see as a QUALITY. That explains why some people dislikes Bob Dylan's hoarse, high-pitched voice, while others love it. And it's no different when it comes to films.
I chose to defend the Hobbit films, because I thought that the vocal minority (aka the Hobbit trilogy-"haters") could use a little counteraction, so the discussion didn't get too one-sided.
Of course I discredit anti-Hobbit opinions. Disagreement is the basis for debate. Disagreement is what brought me here. But I have ALWAYS maintained, that there is no right or wrong when it comes to films - at the end of the day it's all a matter of personal taste.
I only used the concepts "right" and "wrong" when people withheld facts or forgot about the actual content of the films and the books.
No, not every film has flaws - it's true that MOST films have. Some films just work 100 % in every respect,
There is nothing to admit. And no, it has never been a question of being a "victim". All I ever wanted, was a friendly and tolerant tone without name-calling and personal attacks. And it remains an unsolved mystery why certain "anti-Jackson folks" (as you call them) simply couldn't write a post without adding those things.
noo, films dont win awards because "they work 100%". they win because they have various elements, sometimes all, most or even afew that excell, either individualy in in conjunction..
just like how suicide squad, a highly flawed film, was nominated for best makeup.. by your definition, the film worked 100% just because one element was excellent.
the unvocal majority dont really like this film... not saying they dont outright dislike it, but its pretty clearthe vast majority think "meh it was passable, unforgetable and not astounding in any way"
no crowds waiting for jackson at airports. during LOTR he had groups going to airports just to cheer him, none of that happened in the hobbit.
so CAN YOU finally for once, be honest, not be a coward, and admit you at first said dain was mostly all practical and almost no cgi, then changed it to "okay there was lots of FX, to "okay he was mostly cgi"
just admit it for once you were factually, objectively and undeniably wrong and mistaken and you did not know the information and lied about it. you may actually get some respect for once BN
But what if a person doesn't feel that a film has any flaws?I don't see that as a rational position, especially when one can point to such technical errors as a sickle moon inexplicably transforming into a full moon (between the end of The Desolation of Smaug and the beginning of The Battle of Five Armies).
So-called "movie-mistakes" don't count. I don't care about continuity errors and all that ... I care about the acting, the plot, the script, the pacing, the music, the sound, the cinematography, the special effects ... and that's what I talk about, when I talk about flaws or no flaws.
How convenient for you that you make up your own definitions for words when they don't otherwise fit your needs. You do realize that's a bullcrap excuse, right?
"Hell hath no fury like that of the uninvolved." - T. Isabella
So the acting, the plot, the script, the pacing, the music, the sound, the cinematography, the special effects is not what makes YOU like or even love a film?????????????
If that's the case, I really don't understand you.
Have you seen this user review http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068646/reviews-1709 of 'The Godfather'?
The guy calls the film "a flawless masterpiece". Do you really think that the fact this film, that takes place in the 1940s, contains a scene where a couple wearing clothes from the 1970s can be seen in the background, will make him change his mind?
No, it probably wont, but it should change his mind on the "flawless" part of his analysis.
Otaku's point is that you are going to the salad bar, seeing wilted lettuce and rotten tomatoes, ignoring them, then eating the cucumbers and saying that the salad bar is a delicious perfect salad bar.
P.S. Anyone see what I did there with the Rotten Tomatoes pun? Anyone?
No, not if "flawless" refers to the only thing that really matters here: the cinematic qualities ... the acting, the plot, the pacing, the cinematography, the editing, the music, the sound, the special effects ... etc.
The only ones who care about so-called "movie mistakes", are people who haven't got a life.
Well, the counter-argument is that people who ignore "movie mistakes" have no taste or understanding of quality. It can be argued that either viewpoint is negative, not just the one you don't agree with...
share
There is at least one "movie mistake" in Francis Ford Coppola's 'The Godfather' (the one I've already mentioned) and also a continuity error in Alfred Hitchcock's 'North by Northwest' (a boy in the background puts his fingers in his ears because he knows that in just a moment a gun will be fired). In my opinion both films are flawless masterpieces, and if someone thinks, this proves that I "have no taste or understanding of quality", it's quite alright - I don't expect that all other people have the same opinion about these two films.
So the acting, the plot, the script, the pacing, the music, the sound, the cinematography, the special effects is not what makes YOU like or even love a film?????????????I never stated any of that. If you are going to set up a straw-man argument that has nothing to do with what I wrote then we have nothing to discuss and you are wasting my time. And there are things in some of the above that I do have issues with (mostly concerning Jackson's original additions to the plot).
If that's the case, I really don't understand you.
Well, then why don't you stick to those things, instead of wasting your time talking about so-called "movie mistakes"?
It was YOU who brought it up, not me.
Because they were perfectly valid examples of flaws even if you don't care to admit it. I have discussed my other issues with these films numerous times before; I'm sure that you have seen some of those posts and even taken part in some of those discussions. How many times do you want to rehash the same old arguments?
I will give one such example: Jackson added such moronic, cartoonish gags as pipeweed smoke coming out of Radagast's ears. Funny in a Bugs Bunny cartoon; stupid here.
"Hell hath no fury like that of the uninvolved." - T. Isabella
Regardless of what YOU consider to be substantial flaws, you have to understand this:
Whenever I call a film "flawless", it's solely the plot, the pacing, the acting, the cinematography, the editing, the music, the special effect ... etc. that I'm referring to.
It's THOSE things that determine whether I'd call a film "flawless" or not.
"Movie mistakes" are basically just about making a sensation out of the fact that it's a film, and not reality ... as if we didn't know! In my daily life I'm not followed by cameras, there is no background music that constantly adapts to the mood or situation. There are no sudden leaps forward in time, no flashbacks. Nothing happens in slow-motion. And I'm not suddenly in another place. ... But in a film those things happens all the time. So if a substantial or relevant flaw is when you see something that reminds you, that it's just a film, then we might just as well conclude, that all films are filled with flaws from beginning to end.
And, of course, you ignore the example I gave of the sequence with Radagast and the pipeweed which was not the kind of 'movie mistake' that you find easy to dismiss.
"Hell hath no fury like that of the uninvolved." - T. Isabella
To me Radagast and the pipeweed is just a funny visual gag, which I didn't even notice before Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh mentioned it on the dvd's commentary track.
You say that it belongs in a cartoon like Bugs Bunny. Well, there is also Gandalf using his finger as a matchstick (in Bagend) just like Laurel did in one of the old Laurel and Hardy films. And the next cartoonish thing could have been a talking purse just like in one of Disney's animated films (for instance Beauty and the Beast) ... it's a good thing that Tolkien's book doesn't contain such a thing! ... oh, wait a second!
That's almost a successful counter there with the talking purse. Congratulations! Off-hand, I don't remember if Tolkien kept the purse in his abandoned 1960 revision of The Hobbit. I will remind you, though, that TH was written as a children's bedtime story and elements naturally reflect that. Gandalf's fire-finger doesn't take me out of the story--perhaps because he actually bears the Ring of Fire and demonstrates ability with fire magics.
"Hell hath no fury like that of the uninvolved." - T. Isabella
Gandalf's fire-finger doesn't take me out of the story
An Unexpected Journey - 10/10
The Desolation of Smaug - 10/10
The Battle of the Five Armies - 10/10