Well it is a west-country adjacent style drawl, I’ve heard broader (and better as well) and certainly more indistinct. I’m perhaps quite tolerant of bad accents.
Yes, I know that (as my use of “Mummerset” should indicate), but once again, I’m not talking about his accent. Most of that is just fine, as far as I can tell. It’s just the Froh-Doh… well, that and his stupid face.
I agree with this. Very few shows or movies achieve a 5 in my estimation. That doesn’t make a ‘4’ a mark of failure, though.
I’d give the LOTR trilogy a 4 overall and this season of RoP a 3.5.
Complaining about Galadriel’s height? Come on. How would the show be different if she was taller? Her height drives zero plot in the books or LOTR movies.
I certainly think there are problems with RoP, but complaining about an actress’s height is approaching parody of fanboy culture.
What are you talking about?!
Oh, that. Point taken.
Funny, in context, I myself admitted it was “silly”, but go ahead and take it in a negative direction. Galadriel’s height was actually significant, like her hair being Silver-Golden. FTR, she is suppose to be 6’4" and maybe the tallest Elf Woman. I would have to go digging to verify that part.
And no one complained about the actresses height. This is a show with the Harfoot actors reduced in size vs. full-sized men. Making the actress taller is keeping with such.
Wikipedia concurs with you:
This is sourced to the Unfinished Tales book, and came from writings by Tolkien himself.
I was aware that you knew that but I’d go no more specific than somewhere in the general west country, or an imagined area therein.
Maybe she stored her ring on a very high shelf? Or played one-on-one hoops with the Mouth of Sauron?
Good point.
If you did not watch the series, it is hard to judge. I found it coherent and interesting , but yes, the first couple of epis were slow.
A lot of zero stars bombing by fanboys. 
Even if you didn’t like it, no honest review could give it zero.
A couple have quoted JRRT as hinting he could be.
Yes. LotR was 5+. The three Hobbit films would be 5, 3, 2. The first is quite good, but the third… not so much. Jackson was screwed by the film company that demanded a trilogy.
I’ve seen way worse shows. Yeah, I have my issues with it, but it’s hard to see how it could honestly be rated 0.
“Slow” isn’t a problem, not making sense or presenting me with likeable and/or interesting characters, is.
Well that’s a no true Scotsman argument if ever I saw one. I see no reason why a review with the lowest possible score can’t be every bit as valid as one with the highest possible score. Some will love it, some will hate it.
With a source material as well-loved and well-founded as this you are certainly at risk of polarising opinion.
As a reminder, you kicked a bunch of this off by saying that the best the show had to offer was apparently representation, and then when challenged said that must be true because there wasn’t anything else to like except possibly the music. Then, when people said there are a lot of people that like a lot of parts of it, you either implied the scores were rigged, or argued otherwise that the show is bad.
The short answer seems to be that you just can’t believe anybody likes it for reasons of quality.
From what I’ve gathered…the greatest sin is a lack of imagination from inexperienced modern writers. Shipping plots, videogame tropes for things not needed (The creation of Mordor) and a failure to understand the source material.
That would be my critique in a nutshell.
I said
Which was a response to an article that TroutMan linked to. It isn’t my opinion. But personally I don’t think the series has that much to commend it and I don’t think the increased representation is relevant to the quality in any way but there was a whole article saying that it is an important aspect of the show.
My personal opinion is that it is a bad show or at least a very disappointing show for many people.
As for “rigged” scores, IMDB is owned by Amazon and loads of negative reviews have been removed and Amazon’s own reviews are suspect as well. I clearly said I don’t know where you would go to get an unbiased review summary. Which site fairly represents honest opinion? I’d be happy for you to tell me.
Also, I did say very early on
So I clearly have no problem accepting that some people like it, as they are perfectly entitled to do. They are friends and colleagues whose opinions I trust. I happen to think it is a mess, as do many others.
Huh. I swear I remembered Jackson publicly lobbying NewLine or whoever to make the films a trilogy during production, but I can’t seem to dig up a cite.
Here he is, claiming it was only his precious idea, in order to give it a scope similar to LotR:
The Hobbit Trilogy: The REAL Reason It Was Made Three Movies (screenrant.com)
Jackson, however, claims that the idea to split The Hobbit into three parts came from him alone, with the director wanting Bilbo’s story to not feel any less epic in scale compared to his original [Lord of the Rings trilogy]and proposing the adaptation of Tolkien’s appendices and wider notes.
I think Jackson was just covering for the company to dispel the story that he was being forced to do it. Which is what I think was happening. He didn’t want to direct them at all, but he found him forced to do it. He wanted two movies, not three, but he was forced to do three. In those interviews, he is just helping save face for everyone. He doesn’t sound convincing at all. That’s my take anyway.
Interesting. I heard only that he planned for two, and had to do three. But you all have given some interesting insights. Still, the first film was pretty nice.
While bringing in Tauriel to change up the sausage party was a Good Idea, having her love interest be one of the young dwarves was not. I though she could have a thing for Legolas, but forbidden by the King. My idea was having Fili and Kili actually being female! 
Keep in mind that a good number of those low scores have been psoted by people whose primary complaint about the show is that there are black people in it.