this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2023
101 points (98.1% liked)
Asklemmy
43144 readers
1992 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Hands down, for the production money that went into it, The Hobbit trilogy.
This is the only movie series that legitimately made me mad. The book seemed so simple to adapt to the screen. Just follow the book, with a little cut out to help with screen time, and watch the money roll in. Instead, we got one of the worst book adaptations Hollywood's ever seen.
You make more money with a trilogy!
Just make each movie of the trilogy 30 minutes long! Copy the TikTok hype and call them "shorts"!
The live-action Hobbit movies are the only movies that have a worse budget-to-quality ratio than Star Wars Episode II
Episode II aged better than Episode I. I'll die on this high ground.
In much the same way roadkill ages better than a roadside piss bottle
Words do indeed matter.
From the moment they decided to milk it for three movies I knew it was going to suck. It's a simple little adventure story ffs.