The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Started by Nephthys3,287 pages

Oh god, get out the tumblr outrage. So they replaced the robber girl with Kristoff, boo hoo. The story is better off with it because of how they use him and the (oh god nooo) other male characters to twist your expectations. The ending is pretty revolutionary for Disney imo.

And the movie doesn't freaking marginalize the female characters. These are the best female leads Disney has ever had. Better than Mulan even.

The snowman is a small part of the movie that was overemphasised in the trailers to sell the movie to kids. And you know what, he's a bit annoying but he's still somehow a good character. I thought I'd ****ing loath him going in, but he actually has some poignant moments and serves as a representation of the girls happy friendship as children, since he is the last snowman they built together before shit went down.

Originally posted by Zampanó
I return to you now, at the turning of the tide...

what a hellish Finals week. blargh.

Catching Fire >> Frozen.

Neph, Fire types are super effective against Ice types. Your argument is invalid.

👆

Catching Fire was so damn good.

Frozen was good, but c'mon. The only reason it's getting this much hype is because Feminists 'gasm over it. 👇

Catching Fire was that shit you like. 👆

I am a feminist. estahuh

And I don't think its great because of feminism, I was more into the way it subverted Disney conventions and its surprisingly clever storytelling.

Edit: Also, the Hunger Games movies are the ones feminists orgasm over so wtf?

Originally posted by ares834
I enjoyed it. It was an abysmal adaptation of the book but still a fun movie.
The book isn't very good though.

Honestly, I was never a big fan of LOTR. I appreciated them for their literary and cultural significance but, like Shakespeare and a host of other acclaimed writers, Tolkien isn't high on my list of authors whose works I'll crack open on a rainy day.

Also, Catching Fire was excellent. President Snow is so awesome.

The Lord of the Rings is good, perhaps even great, even by today's standards.

The Hobbit is not.

I thought the first Hobbit was pretty awesome myself.

I'm not talking about the movies fat****.

Ah. Well, the book is a pretty good childrens story.

Originally posted by NemeBro
The Lord of the Rings is good, perhaps even great, even by today's standards.

The Hobbit is not.

This.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
Honestly, I was never a big fan of LOTR. I appreciated them for their literary and cultural significance but, like Shakespeare and a host of other acclaimed writers, Tolkien isn't high on my list of authors whose works I'll crack open on a rainy day.

Also, Catching Fire was excellent. President Snow is so awesome.

LOTR is the best thing since the smallpox vaccine, you heathen. Silence this crap.

Gonna play TFU 2 for the first time >.>

Maul's real name is Jagannath.

http://www.theforce.net/story/front/Star_Wars_Maul_Lockdown_MicroExcerpt_5_155906.asp

facepalm

He's a Lord of the Rings character.

Somehow I always knew.

Originally posted by Intrepid37
Gonna play TFU 2 for the first time >.>
Have fun being underwhelmed.

Intrepid37
Maul's real name is Jagannath.

http://www.theforce.net/story/front/Star_Wars_Maul_Lockdown_MicroExcerpt_5_155906.asp

facepalm


Why assume this is his "real name," and not an alias?

Have you read Darth Plagueis or watched the relevant arcs in seasons 3-5 of The Clone Wars?

Woot, Uliqs chestpiece on my Knight. Pretty swank!

Alright, so I saw The Desolation of Smaug. I'll be concise, to save us all time and eye strain:

Spoiler:
The film is probably the weakest Jackson Middle-Earth film to date. On its own, it would be a decent action movie with superficial tension and drama, but among giants, it is the pygmy cousin with leprosy. I will now give pros and cons:

Pros:

1. Elves kicking ass. Tauriel was swoon-worthy. Legolas apparently was more badass in his youth.

2. Bishonen creepy Thranduil was a great chewer of scenery and had a special kind of charm. Also, the snooty elf lord archetype has been sorely underrepresented lately.

3. Generally, the fighting scenes were good. Some of the actions scenes were good too. I'm not sure which barrel scene bugged some people, but nothing I saw was worse than any stuff I saw in an Indiana Jones trilogy movie. Dwarves, except for Thorin Badass-shield, are pretty much played for laughs anyways thanks to Gimli's flanderization.

4. Smaug was epic. Polite, intelligent, manipulative... he was a dragon to be feared and admired. I greatly enjoyed his scenes.

5. Luke Evans makes a good Bard, I'm impressed. I did not expect to be impressed in this regard. Beorn, however, was less awesome. Borderline cameo role, and it showed.

6. There's other stuff working through my mind that I may have forgotten, so here's a spot for that.

Cons:

1. It's blatantly obvious this was shot for 3D. I don't watch 3D movies because I don't care to, but the 2D versions are usually less immersive because of jarring CGI and contrast. This film follows suit. At least it wasn't a dark blurry mess like some.

2. Some story elements were poorly explained filler. Gandalf abandoning the group and meeting Radaghast is perhaps the worst, although Beorn's shoddy cameo is no better.

3. Smaug refers to Thorin as "Oakenshield", something he would not have known since the event took place after Thorin's exile. Unknown at the moment if this is a scripting error or actually an error within the original work. Uninspired to found out if the latter.

4. Sauron's appearance seemed a little lame to me. The fiery outline of his normal form with the black cloud thing was very let-down-ish. However, to counter this Gandalf got some serious battle spells off for once.

5. Esgaroth struck me as approaching Renaissance level wardrobe and armaments in some ways, and seemed very, very out of place. I recall the Men of Dale and such to be Anglo-Saxon in inspiration.

6. The abrupt end was unsatisfying, like paying for a night's company and having her leave by 9 PM.

Overall, it wasn't a bad film. It was a bad LOTR level film, and while I will still see the finale of the trilogy, I am disappointed. The first three films received standing ovations in the theatre, while neither of the Hobbit films received the same thing and people were grumbling during the leaving of this film.

Jackson's losing it.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Have fun being underwhelmed.

Disintegrating TIE fighters with one burst of lightning isn't bad.

Originally posted by Eminence
Why assume this is his "real name," and not an alias?

Why not?

Originally posted by Eminence
Have you read Darth Plagueis

Yes.

Originally posted by Eminence
or watched the relevant arcs in seasons 3-5 of The Clone Wars?

No.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

Spoiler:

Jackson's losing it.
Consider the source material.

He didn't have much to work with.

Someone said on here once that Jackson is good at bringing a great story (LotR) to life on the medium of cinema.

The Hobbit isn't actually a great story. And I have not the faintest ****ing clue why he turned a three hundred page book into a trilogy.