Talk:Updates/@comment-30830745-20170217061427/@comment-25754873-20170223223830

Well I am going to go backwards, to anwser these aweful points.

In my opinion Eragon was already aweful so, I don't see how it could get worse.

Now to destroy the rest of this idiotic arguement, so I saw almost every discrepency. I mean Thranduil was way kinder in the books and wiser. Also, the Kili/Tauriel thing absolutely ruined it for me. I mean, the Hobbit was a child's book, a fairy tale, this is just moronic. But seriously, could they not use CGI for Beorn? I mean they ruined the rest of the movie with it. I mean in the extended scenes the dwarves and elves where fighting each other! For the love of Elbereth! The book writen by JRR Tolkien was writen masterfully, he could have atleast made it his general path! Peter Jackson and his story writers just went an entire a different direction!

Now while I do agree with you that the Dol Guldor part was cool but it was just that, it was to important. The Rivendell scene just made the dwarves look like fools, that they where not. In my expirence there should be a clear difference between comical relief and stupidness. For your arguement with Bilbo getting knocked out I could say who would watch a movie with a charector that bungles around never doing anything right and yet somehow gets to a position of immense power and both saves and dooms the galaxy(hint hint)? Now if you are able to write it off that someone who had been a captain for who knows how long and commits treason agisnt her people and commits more of them to die and attacks her king who only wishes the best for his subjects. It would be quite easy for them to make it so the movie would be good even with Bilbo knocked out.

Now, " I considered the films as good when you look at the problems they had with production and if I would ignore this huge point I consider them as OK" really, that is like saying if we look at the USSR and be like okay, I am going to ignore all of the brutality, sensoring, and sheer evil it is OK, or like saying FDR is perfect when he violated American nuetrality, stole gold(there own property), and locked 110,000 Japanese in internment camps without a trial or evidence. But if we ignore all of this he is perfect! When judging something you have to take in the pros and the cons, which you do not seem to be doing very well.

Now, I would like to know where you get that impression of me? I infact know that I do not know everything, and if I speak for the whole world would you not be argueing against me? It appears you are resorting to petty name calling and general wrongness to "win" this arguement, now I would like to ask you to stop and face this like a warrior and not a coward.