if you're not operating on your bias, then who's bias are you operating on?

@@christofarnucc1344 ryan's

Gregg Turkington could've told you that

The hobbet deserved way more oscers...

@@joergenmaster7530 Bro it fucking sucked

Its good it just pales in comparison to the lord of the rings series. But keep in mind they worked like 10 years on the LOTR movies alone so its not really a fair comparison

@@petezzz I'd give it 5 bags of popcorn and all the cups of soda in the world 🤷

this is the most accurate analogy to date

i'm too scared to laugh

i was just thinking bro im 3 min in and this has made me laugh atleast 5 times

Jerome Powell got rolled

I love it when NL goes off at chat... definitely the best part of any of these long form banter videos

"I'm in 2010 mother fucker!" Had me cackling

dude got bodied with the "IM IN 2010 MF"

Can his opinion be a bit? Either way it’s funny.

He's right. The care and attention that was paid to the LOTR trilogy was simply not there in the Hobbit trilogy. Too much CGI and a story stretched to breaking over the course of three films. It's worse than bad cos it's so damn boring.

There's a lot of nuance to the mess that was The Hobbit. But essentially it boils down to the story only requiring one film, maybe two if you really wanted to stretch it. But the studio demanded a trilogy because of the LotR trilogy's success. So they had to pad out a one film script into three very watered down movies of nothing but filler nonsense.

@@keith3946 Not only that, but Jackson basically came in at the last moment to try and "save it" and the production was f'ed from the start. The movies failed in pre-production.

You're all high if you think the Hobbit trilogy was somehow "bad". It didn't earn billions for nothing. "Lacked attention to detail", "Too much CGI"? Please. It's like we watched different movies.

"i'm gonna become the joker" lmfao

No they didn't. You'd have to have 2 exact same numbers, which is far more likely with ratings.

@@CreepyBio No they didn't what? It's only more likely with reviews because imdb doesn't bother with more than one digit after the decimal. The actual review averages are not identical, but they round them so the number isn't obnoxiously long. ("This movie got a 6.74672085!") They're saying that since the reviews are rounded (even though it's unintentional on the part of the game), the earnings should also be rounded, i.e. $206k instead of $206,006,503.

@@Fuzzlepuzzle exactly, the reviews rounded it to two significant digits while the gross earnings get eight to ten. The difference in precision is enormous; in the ratings if two movies get rated 5.0 that's close enough even if one is a 4.96 and the other a 5.04 (almost a 2% difference), but 301.2 million gross vs 302.7 million (a 0.5% difference, or four times less) apparently matters here.

@@Fuzzlepuzzle you realize this game isn't made by IMDb? The game is only exposed to the same information available to the public, and to the public, review scores typically go as far as one decimal place. They made same review score freebies because they have no other way of determining a winner, which is not an issue with revenues.

@@CreepyBio yeah, and that's dumb as hell. They actually were on to something with letting there be ties on the IMDb quiz, nobody's going to remember which movie made 0.8 million more on a $500 million gross. If I wanted to play that part of the game I'd just memorize the phone book in alphabetical order

based

@@ILubBLOfficial I can name you 100 very good films that have under 7.5 average on IMDb just off the top of my head. Most of them would be older movies but anyway.

Piracy solves that problem. I pirate films and then buy them on blu-ray if I like them.

Parasite is a far better movie imo

cringe

he was right though

What was his point, can you give me a timestamp?

The movie was famously a box office bomb. It gained popularity later on when it became a staple of cable channels and more people watched it.

Lmao it's loved on imdb

So true

Many people are saying this

I think it's a combination of the first Hobbit movie being okay, so fans held out hope, and also the fanbase for anything LOTR related is massive.

As someone who's also read The Hobbit, it's good but ultimately it _is_ a children's book. Bilbo's a great character, and in fact I prefer him to Frodo, but a lot of what was in The Hobbit was just a prototype for what would be fleshed out in The Lord of the Rings. I'm not sure JRR even had a solid idea of what exactly elves and dwarves were in his world by that point, and so they and their cultures aren't described in very great detail. You also have plot lines like the Necromancer, where Gandalf just disappears for a few chapters with little explanation, which I don't think Tolkien had even decided was Sauron yet. There's a lot of retroactive patching done to the characters and plot of The Hobbit by Tolkien in his later works in order to make it fit with the rest of the Legendarium. It really is just a demo for LoTR, and this view is supported by the "Tolkien Professor" (if you know who he is). I like The Hobbit, but it is the lesser of The Lord of the Rings, which is why it makes for a worse film. Not just because it's more child friendly (which gets you ridiculous scenes like the escape from Goblin Town and the Barrel Ride), but because it is not as well written, and I think Tolkien would agree with that sentiment as he was very critical of his own works.

Wrong use of Pog. Check urban dictionary for both versions and youll see my friend

@@cloudedCognition8 pawgy

ong was boutta say it definitely wasn't NL but seems way too time consuming

The videos of Harrison Ford acting with the human playing the dog from this movie are also very funny