At their worsts, how do the Hobbit films compare to the Star Wars prequels? Are they even in the same league of badness?I think the tauriel scenes are way shittier than the Anakin/Padme Naboo scenes
>>63378313
I honestly couldn't believe how shit they were as I was watching them, they make the star wars prequels look great imo. I at least derived some enjoyment out of watching those.
Like I literally can not think of a single thing I liked from any of the Hobbit films. I guess the fact that they ended is the only positive memory in my mind.
>>63378377
This.
>>63378313
Prequels had Clone troopers and cool droid/ship designs.
There is nothing worth saving in The Hobbit.
>>63378313
The SW prequels are worse, I suppose, but the Hobbit movies tainted actual source material.
Then again the SW prequels ended up spreading what changes they brought to the rest of the SW EU.
>>63378377
Smaug was cool. Like Darth Maul in the SW prequels
Bilbo was good, kinda like how Obi Wan was good in the prequels. And the one scene where Bilbo talks to Smaug was actually 10/10.
but jesus christ literally everything else is incomprehensibly bad. what the fuck was p jack thinking. Definitely the new generation of the prequels.
>>63378452
The SW prequels are legitimately better than the Hobbit movies.
>>63378464
Smaug looked like complete shit though, when I saw him I was like "that's kinda cool I guess". Darth Maul was literally the only decent thing in the Phantom Menace.
PM has Darth Maul
AotC has clone troopers and Jango Fett and shit
RotC has that cool space battle at the start, clone troopers killing Jedis and prime meme material.
the hobbit movies are infinitely better. that's why the comparison is a bit unfair, because nothing will ever suck quite as much. there are things that work in the hobbit.
having said that, they are the closest thing there will ever be, probably, and on many occasions channel the problems of the star wars prequels so intensely that it borders on the, dare i say it, poetic
Phantom Menace - 6/10
Attack of the Clones - 5/10
Revenge of the Sith - 6/10
An Unexpected Journey - 4/10
Desolation of Smaug - 3/10
Five Armies - didn't watch, apparently the worst
>>63378516
>The SW prequels are legitimately better than the Hobbit movies.
Nah, I don't follow, the first Hobbit movie alone is probably better than the entire SW prequels, then it goes to shit. Plot's much more straightforward and doesn't require as much of the characters having to be idiots at every turn to make sense (as much, mind you, there's still plenty of it, as well as characters travelling around at speeds that doen't make sense either). They're also made much better, up until the last one which goes full prequel in that its entirely greenscreen.
>>63378583
On that scale, Five Armies is like a -4/10
>>63378611
Your opinion is shit so I'm going to disregard anything you have to say.
>>63378583
No man.
Phantom Menace-3/10
Attack of the Clones-4/10
Revenge of the Sith-5.5/10
An Unexpected Journey-4/10
Desolation of Smaugh-2/10
Five Armies-1/10
>>63378313
They're much better than the prequels but that's saying very, very, VERY little.
The scenes in the Shire in the first Hobbit movie are actually kida nice. Still have the same vibe as the Shire in Fellowship.
It all goes downhill as soon as Bilbo leaves his hole.
>>63378583
No fucking way have you actually seen the entire SW prequels if that's your ratings for them.
>people in this thread unironically saying the prequels are better
Do you people think constant over the shoulder shots and little actual sets are poetry or something?
>>63378696
>They're much better than the prequels but that's saying very, very, VERY little.
No they aren't.
They're much, much worse.
>>63378731
because it was real
>>63378516
>star wars had a cool space battle
That's where you're wrong fuck tard. Throwing a bunch of ships in a blender and having them explode for no reason with no explanation of what's going on is gay and boring.
people here are insane, the prequels are shit movies not even suitable for kids and adults
atleast the hobbit movies are good enough for kids, as they don't feature the straight up murder of children
the only reason I watched them was the same reason I watched all of lost
>>63378731
They're kids who never actually saw the SW prequels and just have the Hobbit movies fresh in their mind.
>Go north. Find the Dunedain. There’s a young ranger amongst them. You should meet him. His father Arathorn was a good friend. His son might grow to be a great one. He is known in the wild as Strider. His true name... you must discover for yourself. Legolas! Your mother loved you.
>>63378611
The Prequels aesthetics were good, props, creature design, sound design etc
the hobbit is just lord of the rings againb, this time with horrible gray/brown filters smotherd over everything. Also a lot more goofy/gruesome shit eg bird shit on the stoner wizard, cancer goblins, robot armed orc (badasss!!!!!!!!1) burn victim elf, dwarf with an axe in his head. Just an ugly, annoying film.
Prequel plots make no sense, but there's enough action where it's watchable, the hobbit is interminable.
Dialogue/acting in both ranges from decent to laughable.
The Battle of the Five Armies was the only movie of the three that I considered to be awful. I liked the first movie more than most people and the second was good but needed to be edited to be shorter and have some of the goofier moments taken out.
>>63378814
>The Prequels aesthetics were good, props, creature design, sound design etc
Seriously? Jar Jar Binks, Watto and Nute Gunray are good creature designs? Obviously the Hobbit designs are shitty for the big goblin and Azog (who bizarrely isn't shitty looking enough for an orc) which are all entirely CGI instead of the make-up they did for LotR, but at least that can be reasoned with that orcs are supposed to be ugly.
And what filters? The movies are mostly green/blue, it doesn't look like that till maybe the last one, which yeah, is just ugly, full of guys in grey fighting other guys in grey.
You can't possibly praise the Prequels for aesthetics when 2/3rds of them were entirely CGI anyway.
Entirely forgettable.
Rate these characters from most migraine inducing to most tolerable
>Tauriel
>Alfrid
>One of the meme dwarves (they're all the same)
>Master of Laketown
>Young Anakin
>AotC padme
>Grievous
>Jar-Kar
hint: one series will have much shittier characters
i don't even know why people are arguing over this... the first hobbit was ok (6.5/10 at most) and the others were below average.
peter jackson even admits in a lot of interviews, and behind the scenes, that it was pretty all made up on the spot due to time restrictions, and that he wishes he had more time, like he did with lotr.
i think if time wasn't a problem, we would have had 6 perfect films...but i guess the world just doesn't deserve it.
it's such amazingly cruel irony that we have to live through the same damn thing again
>>63379127
>Legolas
>Hurr Hurr Bonks
>Big Dwarven Cock loving elf guy
>Babby Vader
>Padme
>Alfrid being taken seriously
>General Grievance
>Lake Town mayor
>meme gnomes
>>63378947
>Seriously? Jar Jar Binks, Watto and Nute Gunray are good creature designs?
They're decent imo, ships + creatures in those movies tend to be good.
> but at least that can be reasoned with that orcs are supposed to be ugly.
ugly in an edgy diseasey, painful, biomechanical way, inconsistent with the tone of story + the look of the previous films
>And what filters?
Lots of bloom, lots of blur, lots of brown, not my cup of tea.
>>63379232
I liked it when she gave him an elvish hand job to heal him
>>63378377
Martin freeman was perfect as bilbo in my opinion, but that only had me wishing he was in a better movie for 9 hours.
Incidentally I can read the hobbit in less time than it would take for the whole trilogy to play out.
>>63378377
It's worse also because the book exists and we can know how much better those movies could actually be.
>>63378807
This is probably the worst thing I've even seen in a film. Fucking baffling as well. What was the context of this even?
>>63379133
It should be two to begin with. The extra stretch killed the plot, the pacing and most of the worst shit only got even announced after they said it was going to be 3 movies.
I only watched the second one because somefriendsdragged me to the theater. It really surprised me how boring it was. Not as bad as the prequels though.
Phantom Menace - 4/10
Attack of The Clones - 3/10
Revenge of the Sith - 3/106/10 for the meme factor though, it's easily the most quotable prequel film in terms of shit dialogue
An Unexpected Journey - 6/10
The Desolation of Smaug - 5/10
The Battle of the Five Armies - 1/10legitimately the worst film I've ever seen in the cinema and that includes the first Grown Ups film
>>63378377
>Like I literally can not think of a single thing I liked from any of the Hobbit films.
I liked the intro the the Battle of the Five Armies where dsciount Orlando killed Smaug.
>>63379961
Phantom Menace - 4/10
Attack of The Clones - 4/10
Revenge of the Sith - 7/108/10 for the meme factor though, it's easily the most quotable prequel film in terms of shit dialogue
An Unexpected Journey - 5/10
The Desolation of Smaug - 2/10
The Battle of the Five Armies - 0/10legitimately the worst film I've ever seen in the cinema and that includes the first Grown Ups film
Fixed all my typos.
The greatest archievement of the BAttle of the Five Armies, is that it suprises you over and over when you think it cant get any worse
>>63378313
The Hobbit movies are by far and a way worse. Somehow the CGI looks worse, the characters are more annoying, and the action less satisfying.
>>63380078
Stop stealing my copyrighted posts anon, I'll send you a DMCA notice
literally bloom the trilogy
Worse than the prequels, but there wasn't enough hype to make people see them that way.
The first Hobbit was decent, comfy, but it didn't have an end.
The second had the bullshit cliffhanger and kate from lost.
The third was a terrible cgi shitfest.
The question is, why bother turning a 150 page book into 3 movies? If it had all been done as one nice, small movie with no filler, it could jave been great.
>>63378739
They're terrible, but the prequels were terrible AND boring.
Was Alfrid jewish?
>Reminder that George Lucas had tons of pre-production time to plan and map out how he was going to make the prequels and had a finished script to go off of the whole time
>Reminder Peter Jackson had no prep time and had to scramble, a lot of the time without any script or plan as to how the scene would play out or fit in
the prequels were calculated and planned and in the control of the director at all time, the hobbit wasn't
>>63378731
DUDE RED LETTER MEDIA LMAO
It's not all entirely Peter Jackson's fault. The studios forced him to spread it into 3 movies instead of just two like he originally planned. On top of that Guillermo del Toro had to leave directing The Hobbit and Peter Jackson was forced to step in and direct it, even though he never originally wanted to take on that job in the first place.
The prequels have no excuse however
>>63378739
Prequels were terrible, but the Hobbit were terrible AND boring.
They are shit but at least they weren't so boring I couldn't even be bothered to finish them in one sitting like the phantom menace.
>>63378766
gr8 g8 of b8 m8, gotta make the p8s ir8 and masturb8 instead of m8 in a d8
>>63380220
So? You can make excuses for why they were bad but it doesn't change the fact that The Hobbit movies were a worse end product, which is the only thing I care about as the viewer.
>>63380253
>>63380174 (You)
Literally what
>>63380298
If you honestly think the hobbit movies are worse then you clearly haven't watched the star wars movies recently
>>63380233
WHY DIDN'T PETER JUST DEL TACOS PRE PRODUCTION STUFF?
I KNOW IT'S NOT IDEAL BUT IT WOULD STILL HAVE BEEN BETTER THAN JUST NOT DOING ANY PRE-PRODUCTION AT ALL AND MAKING IT ALL UP AS HE WENT ALONG?
>>63380318
I've watched them within the last week getting ready for The Force Awakens. I'm not saying they are great but they are much more enjoyable than the Hobbit.
>>63380298
>>63380318
The Hobbit movies were a lot longer which made them SEEM worse. Watching them was more painful than watching the prequels, partly because of the length but also because of the raped childhood. At least the prequels are dumb enough to just ignore, the Hobbit movies have anally violated a beloved children's book.
In terms of being movies, the Hobbit movies are much better. In terms of having to sit thru them, the prequels are far more "enjoyable" / less painful.
>>63379127
Alfrid
Jar-Jar
Young Anakin
AotC padme
Tauriel
Grievous
Master of Laketown
>>63379961
>>63380078
Phantom Menace - 2/10 -podracing and maul lightsaber battle were pretty fun, the rest of the movie was a borefest
Attack of The Clones - 7/10 -the story was good, all the action scenes were really enjoyable
Revenge of the Sith - 10/10 -Unironically one of my favorite movies of all time only downside was the Padme scenes everything else was amazing
An Unexpected Journey - 4/10 -bit at the start was pretty funny, rest of the movie was boring and lacking story
The Desolation of Smaug - 2/10 -Smaug scenes were good, that's it. (it also had a really weird grey filter over all the scenes that made everything colorless and i really hated that)
The Battle of the Five Armies - 0/10 -it had so much potential and was completely ruined by overuse of CGI and zero story (grey filter was even worse in this movie also)
>>63378807
>Go North, by which I mean West because there's fuck all North of here but more dragons and then more fuck all and then snow, find the Dunedain, who I know you're intimately familiar with because we both remember the entire history of mankind. There is a ranger among them, you should meet him, he's ten years old so he's still living in Rivendell. His father Arathorn was a big guy, for me, which you know already, his son may be a big guy, for you. He will be known in a little shitburg town you'll never visit as Strider, I'm not telling you his real name but it rhymes with Arathorn and he's the only ten year old human in Rivendell, probably. Legolas, your mother loved you, which of course you know because you spent thousands of years together and as we're empathic elves I don't think we're capable of not loving our children, but maybe in AD&D or Warhammer or something we'll look like assholes.
>>63378464
Smaug looked like shit compared to the fellbeasts.
![latest[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/CnM8Ng1.png "latest[1].png")
>>63380739
Let's not get too excited here.
>>63380974
Even with that Smaug looked much worse in motion. I personally didn't really care for BenandJerry Cummerbund's performance either.
>>63380974
At least the Fell Beast was a beast, Smaug the "Dragon" was just a wyvern.
Being shot on digital hurt the Hobbit movies. Everything looked plastic and fake. Everything looked like it was filmed on a soundstage.
>>63378793
So you watched Ant Man as well.
>SW prequels were better
Are you guys legitimately retarded?
The 3rd hobbit did have some shit CGI and some shit lines that stood out but the other 2 didn't. The acting was mostly great as well.
You can't honestly think that "HURR I AM THE SENATE, HE IS THE TRAITOR, IN MY POINT OF VIEW THE HIGH GROUND IS WORSE THAN SAND" is better acting and writing than the hobbit.
Both trilogies have shit CGI so you can't really compare them.
AUJ is probably the only good movie out of the 6. DoS and Revenge of the Sith are are either mostly boring or mostly terrible with some good parts (RotS). BotFa was somewhat retarded but it was nice at parts( Bilbo and thorin scene at the end). The phantom menace and the clone wars were just shit.
>>63381516
>Are you guys legitimately retarded?
Where do you think you are?
AUJ > DoS > RotS > BotFA > PM > CW
>>63380078
>Revenge of the Sith 7/10
I'm sorry but what kind of shit taste in film do you have if you give that 7/10? It's slightly better than the other 2 but it's passable AT BEST.
Or is this the same retarded cancer as video games where anything less than 8/10 means shit
>>63381956
>>Revenge of the Sith not 7/10
I'm sorry but what kind of shit taste in film do you have if you Not give that 7/10? It's much better than the other 2 but it's average AT BEST.
Or is this the same retarded cancer as video games where anything less than 8/10 means shit
>>63378697
Really really enjoyed the start of the first one. So comfortable
>>63378313
Prequels spawned plenty of good things. Nothing good came from the Hobbit except maybe the Legos
>>63382016
Oh you're just some underage who gets mad about people insulting his childhood films, carry on.
Anybody who actually thinks Revenge of the Sith is close to 7/10 is a pleb of the highest order
>>63380655
10/10 post, anon.
>>63382080
>dude plinkett reviews for the win! what do you think jessies feet smell like! new best of the worst!
Kill yourself you retard.
>>63382143
There is no planet on which any of the prequels get more than a 3/10. They were monumentally vapid and lazy, to an almost astonishing degree.
>>63382143
>I think Revenge of the Sith was a good film
No my friend, just get some taste. Make a thread asking for some good cinema and broaden your horizons past capeshit and star shit
>>63382205
And the Hobbit films were worse in every single way.
>>63382210
*tips fedora*
>>63380974
What PS4 game is this?
>>63382267
>And the Hobbit films were worse in every single way.
They're terrible films, no-one is arguing otherwise, but they have some good acting and some good visuals, that's two things none of the prequels has. I hope to God that I never have to sit thru either again, but at least the Hobbit movies just left me bored, the prequels left me bored and angry.
Tbh I like first 2 hobbit movies, but third is objectively trash
>>63382356
>Good acting
Who's "good" besides Martin Freeman, even then he's mediocre. The acting is completely forgettable.
>Good visuals
The prequels are far more aesthetically and visually pleasing than the Hobbit films
>>63378313
They got worse as they went. They destroyed what the story was about. Added a needless love plot, made oakenshield a whiny bitch, and why the fuck was legolas even in it?!
>>63382405
>Who's "good" besides Martin Freeman, even then he's mediocre. The acting is completely forgettable.
Forgettable is better than "so awful it will forever be a meme".
>The prequels are far more aesthetically and visually pleasing than the Hobbit films
Yeah, no. Just by using real locations (some of the time) Hackson wins this one. The prequels look like they're set in a videogame, and not in a good way.
>>63378377
The dragon was cool, I guess.
>>63382495
There was no dragon in any of these movies, just a wyvern with a British accent.
>>63382492
Right because Sci-Fi films are all about using real world locations, they aren't filled with gigantic sprawling futuristic cities, space ships and other shit like that or anything.
Oh wait, you're a fucking retarded bitch.
Go watch Red Letter Media some more you stupid fat faggot.
>>63382539
>they aren't filled with gigantic sprawling futuristic cities, space ships and other shit like that or anything.
The prequels didn't have any of those tho, it just had terrible CGI renditions of them.
>>63378313
I don't know how to compare them, but they were pretty bad imo. The fist wasn't that bad, but the second was so boring. I didn't even watch the third after that. If they weren't such greedy assholes, they could have easily made a solid one or two movies out of it. Instead, they decided to put in a bunch of filler and boring shit to artificially lengthen the movie.
I was rolling my eyes at the Smaug chase scene in the second movie as it just wouldn't end. That was the best example of artificially lengthening the movie imo.
SW Prequels was the result of one man going his own way with a beloved franchise made by a team just as dedicated to the vision as he was. The Hobbit was the result of some suits in Hollywood going 'I bet we can a killing on LotR nostalgia!'.
>>63382610
The CGI is even worse in the Hobbit lol
I don't even see people talk about the CGI in the prequels, because there isn't a problem with it, it looks fine. The problem is with the shitty plot and retarded dialogue.
>>63380655
kek
>>63382642
>The CGI is even worse in the Hobbit lol
I dunno, there's not much to choose between them. Both had CGI so bad it pulled you out of the movie, only the Hobbit also had some scenes with real terrain so your eyes could recover, while the prequels insist on raping you with CGI literally constantly, even when it makes no sense.
> The problem is with the shitty plot and retarded dialogue.
the Hobbit movies also had terrible dialogue and nonsense plots, but it ALSO had actual quotations from real literature and actual half-good acting by real actors, the prequels just have MUH POETRY and some of the most wooden "performances" ever screened.
We are comparing a pile of shit with another pile of shit, but there's no doubt the prequels are the more obnoxiously foul pile.
>>63382775
Hobbit is worse
>>63382819
Hobbit was more disappointing and more painful to sit thru, prequels were worse in pretty much any way that you can compare two sets of movies.
>>63382904
No.
I can think of a bunch of hobbit scenes off the top of my head that were great in spite of the whole movies being bad.
>the three trolls
>bilbo and gollum
>spider forest
>beorn
>thorins lust for gold
>bilbo and smaug
I can't think of a single prequel scene that I liked. Not a one. I think that speaks volumes as to the comparable quality of the two.
>>63382950
Prove me wrong.
>>63380655
This, more or less. Also, dubs.
>>63383044
On their own, the star wars prequels are worse than the hobbit movies overall.
HOWEVER, the original star wars movies are good, but not the masterpieces that autists and nostalgia make them out to be (the first one being the only one up for debate). While the original LotR films ARE masterpieces.
Therefore, the gap of quality is much greater between lotr and hobbit than between original SW and prequel SW.
>>63379127
Alfrid
Master of Laketown
Jar Jar
Meme dwarves
Tauriel
Anakin
Grievous
Padme
>tfw watching the special features disks for LotR EE
>All that love, time and passion put into everything
The Hobbit movies feel so lazy in comparison.
>>63383248
I don't know if lazy is the word. Padded and confused. Hackson had no idea what we was making, and it shows. Sadly, Lucas DID know what he was making, and doubly sadly, it shows in the prequels too.
Hobbit had better scenery porn, but very little story in exchange for a shit ton of pointless battle porn. If it had actually been "The Hobbit" in more than name, as opposed to actually being "The Life and Times of Thorin Oakenshield" they might have been better.
>>63383248
That's because it wasn't meant to be Jackson last minute, he just came in last minute so they'd agree to pay him for LOTR films
They're both completely shit. You'd have to be Indian to tell the difference.
Why was there so much fucking bloom in them, were they trying to hide the shit green screen cgi or what
original trilogy is shot ultra realistic compared to that
>>63378452
>but the Hobbit movies tainted actual source material.
Are you fucking retarded? Jackson's Hobbit movies are adaptations. The books are untouched. Lucas literally tainted Darth Vader and all of Star Wars forever.
>>63378313
The first film was good, had some great moments like the Bilbo and Gollum scene.
The second one had a few good scenes and the dragon was cool.
The third one had a cool intro and a few good scenes after it.
Martin Freeman, Ian Mckellen, Lee Pace and Richard Armitage are all really good.
>>63378688
>>63378583
Phantom Menace: 3/10
Attack of the Clones: 1/10
Revenge of the Sith: 5/10
An Unexpected Journey: 7/10
Desolation of Smaug: 4/10
Battle of the Five Armies: 3/10
as bad as the other two Hobbits were, Desolation of Smaug was a 6/10 movie. fight me
>>63380607
>Attack of the Clones - 7/10
AotC is the worst film I have ever seen in my entire life. The story was shit, the action scenes were CGI garbage, the love story almost killed me.
How can anyone like that crappy film more than the Hobbit 1 and even the Phantom Menace?
>>63387187
nope, I agree
>>63387187
How was it better than the first?
>Smaug is a dragon in lore
>Is a wyvern in the flicks
What did they mean by this?
>>63387265
>IT"S NOT A DRAGON ITS A WYVERN IT ONLY HAS 2 LEGS FFSSSSSSSSS
Dragons with 4 legs look shite, it's still a dragon if you remove 2 legs.
>>63378313
The prequels were way better than The Hobbit.
>>63387391
hello reddit
>>63387265
>literally trying to argue taxonomy in a made up fantasy story
no wonder some people don't get laid
>>63382469
>why the fuck was legolas even in it?!
We needed someone to tell us what the bats were for
>>63380655
dubs of truth desu
>>63387512
>not caring about the difference between a dragon and a dragon with 2 legs instead of 4 makes you a redditor now
what happened /tv/..
>>63387236
There's a nice throughline to the plot, instead of the episodic nature of the first one and the epic-scale nothingness of the third one. it's a story about a bunch of adventurers with grand ambitions, and it becomes increasingly clear as the film progresses that the dwarves actually have no real plan and are meddling with forces they don't really understand as they fuck up a potential ally with the elves over a paltry amount of diamonds and get the town behind them without being able to back it up. In this context I really enjoyed seeing the confrontation with Smaug backfire spectacularly up to and including the final scene of the film. The actors still have good stuff to work with (Thorin is especially good since he has to charismatically sell his terrible decisions), and Lee Pace looked like he was having a blast hamming it up. The conversation between Bilbo and Smaug was great.
>>63387265
Actually Smaugs a wyrm in all of Tolkiens art, so both Jackson renditions are wrong
>>63387581
>being an uneducated imbecile should not be frowned upon
Fuck off reddit
The unexpected party and Billy Bob talking to Smaug were the only good parts.
>>63387626
>front legs
>hind legs
>two wings
That's a dragon you nigger, wyrms are just giant serpents
>>63387680
>uneducated
>wyvern vs dragon discussion
yep because there isn't more important shit going on than searching for the differences between a dragon and an almost dragon.
>>63387785
fuck off back to reddit
>>63387712
He's literally called a wyrm dumb cunt, then again he also gets called a drake and a dragon in the same book, so I guess you're made up /v/ definitions based on inconsistent heraldry don't really matter
>>63387825
>>63387680
>>63387512
>>63387858
Autistic kid that doesn't even know what a wyvern is himself starts freaking out online, calls everyone a redditor that disagrees with him.
Just another day on /tv/ I guess.
>>63387929
This is my favorite /v/eme
>>63387785
>>63387858
>>63387929
literally r*ddit
>>63378313
Yes.
>>63378377
Bilbo and golum was goat, so was bilbo and smaug
Thats about it
>>63387964(you)
>>63388008(you)
I only wrote two of those three you replied to.
>>63383012
>thorins lust for gold
this scene stood out to me as pants-on-head retarded and a perfect example of the shit tier decisions made to increase runtime
How do we add an extra five minutes to our bloated-ass movie? Let's have Thorin wander around confused in a bad CGI trip and get swallowed up by a stupid puddle of gold for a scene that feels like it takes, like, 50 years.
So much of The Hobbit feels like it was made to be more kid-friendly than LOTR, but I could never picture a kid sitting through shit like that.
>>63380607
>attack of the clones
>the story was good
