[ SECRET POST #2189 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2189 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 084 secrets from Secret Submission Post #313.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 2 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 2 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[brooms]

it was poorly edited and no, the lotr trilogy wasn't this clunkily paced.

eta: also, mortensen's presence is missed not just because he's a hot dude, but because he's a superior actor with gravitas. armitage and freeman are good, but not that good.

[ariakas]

I don't know, a lot of the reviews of the original trilogy criticized precisely that aspect. They were overlong, repetitive, with too much walking and chasing. Particularly Fellowship. For critics to have not gotten the point that that was how Jackson intends to tell the story is... interesting.

I disagree. I think Armitage was easily as good as Mortensen was in Fellowship. He grew into the character more in the succeeding two films, true, but you have to give Armitage and Freeman time to do the same.

[brooms]

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey

---

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-fellowship-of-the-ring
http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-two-towers
http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-return-of-the-king

[ariakas]

Er, yes, the overall aggregate scores are very disparate. That is exactly what my original comment mentioned. Yet, many of the reviews on the same site you just posted criticize the original LotR trilogy for many of the aspects for which they criticize The Hobbit, yet give the former a postive score and the latter negative. Resulting in the disparity. That is what I just. Said.

So...? Why did you post a bunch of links? To illustrate my point? Uh, yes, well, I agree. Obviously.

[brooms]

the reply wasn't meant for you, but for the last anonymous comment in this thread. i made a mistake.

that said -

Yet, many of the reviews on the same site you just posted criticize the original LotR trilogy for many of the aspects for which they criticize The Hobbit

no, they don't. i ignore user reviews. critics for respectable publications have been pretty consistent.

[ariakas]

If you say so. But, yes, they do. I've definitely seen professional movie critics make the same complains about the Hobbit as they did LotR (only with added kvetching about 48 fps) but I suppose you can just chalk that up to their publications not being sufficiently respectable for consideration, so it's pointless to cite them. Cheers.