Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
The prequels are better than the sequels, because the prequels are campy enough to be memeable. Also, there was at least an attempt to be creative with the world building.
The real question is whether the sequels are worse than the Hobbit movies.
Both are stupid, but the sequels at least had some fan service jokes that sorta landed the first go through. On the other hand, the sequels felt very, very lazy. The Hobbit movies tried and failed badly, but you don't get the sense that they despised the viewer for even being there.
The real question is whether the sequels are worse than the Hobbit movies.
Both are stupid, but the sequels at least had some fan service jokes that sorta landed the first go through. On the other hand, the sequels felt very, very lazy. The Hobbit movies tried and failed badly, but you don't get the sense that they despised the viewer for even being there.
I think, generally, this is an interesting question. I love the Peter Jackson Kong and LotR films. Not a "huge" fan of The Hobbit films but I still appreciate and enjoy them. I feel that the un-needed additions to the hobbit movies are less obnoxious than the discontinuity in the Star Wars sequels. And if you disagree, you are free to your wrong opinion.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16