Upload
Login or register

Awesomenessniss

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Age: 21
Date Signed Up:12/05/2009
Location:Probably somewhere
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#2676
Highest Content Rank:#578
Highest Comment Rank:#297
Content Thumbs: 35627 total,  39666 ,  4039
Comment Thumbs: 43649 total,  45893 ,  2244
Content Level Progress: 45.8% (458/1000)
Level 234 Content: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 235 Content: Ambassador Of Lulz
Comment Level Progress: 96.6% (966/1000)
Level 336 Comments: Practically Famous → Level 337 Comments: Practically Famous
Subscribers:9
Content Views:1407582
Times Content Favorited:2757 times
Total Comments Made:8448
FJ Points:29143
Favorite Tags: funny (80) | comic (14) | fail (14) | epic (7) | Pokemon (7) | cat (6) | failbook (5) | admin (4) | Photoshop (4) | Cats (3) | Dog (3) | facebook (3) | FJ (3) | Harry Potter (3) | Mario (3) | mustache (3) | Owls (3) | skyrim (3) | song (3) | Art (2)

latest user's comments

#18 - Picture 07/11/2015 on Silmarillion Artwork +1
#16 - The only part that tells how Bilbo got the ring is 'Riddles in…  [+] (2 new replies) 07/11/2015 on Silmarillion Artwork +1
#17 - sturmbeard (07/11/2015) [-]
Oh shit, then I resign from this discussion, I cleary have not nearly enough knowledge to do this
User avatar
#18 - Awesomenessniss (07/11/2015) [-]
#14 - *Pause* " you get some insight in what happens before th…  [+] (4 new replies) 07/11/2015 on Silmarillion Artwork +1
#15 - sturmbeard (07/11/2015) [-]
I get that the two stories are seperate, but movie-wise they are connected. Wich is a poor excuse, I know And you not liking the movie is your opinion, wich is nice. You do bring up some verry good points tho', I kind like the Hobbit trio. For me they make a prequel to the lord of the rings, as of how the ring came to Bilbo.

And I can't say I'm the most qualified to argue about this, as I haven't read all the books, but I'mma do it anyways, since mother dropped me as a child.
User avatar
#16 - Awesomenessniss (07/11/2015) [-]
The only part that tells how Bilbo got the ring is 'Riddles in the Dark', the chapter where he meets Gollum. Perhaps you are unaware of how Tolkien's books got published: THe Hobbit was a bedtime story that he wrote for his children, all the various elements therein were just that story, the ring was just a ring and played no world-changing significance. He had to greatly be persuaded to even send it to a publisher. Lord of the Rings came to be published nearly twenty years later after a great amount of work and world building was put in to it. Anyway the Hobbit isn't really a prequel to LotR and should have been filmed as if it was an independent work.
#17 - sturmbeard (07/11/2015) [-]
Oh shit, then I resign from this discussion, I cleary have not nearly enough knowledge to do this
User avatar
#18 - Awesomenessniss (07/11/2015) [-]
#12 - Lord of the Rings trilogy I adore, even though it had to leave…  [+] (6 new replies) 07/11/2015 on Silmarillion Artwork +2
#13 - sturmbeard (07/11/2015) [-]
Yeah, but there was an attempt to tell the story to the crowd, although alot was left out. Also the romance "story" kinda ruins it But the visuals where good, and you get some insight in what happens before the Lord of the rings.

One cannot sit and think that all movies will be like the books, if people started thinking like that, there would be no point in making the movies, as someone will always be unhappy. Either because something got left out, or something wasn't portrayed right.
User avatar
#14 - Awesomenessniss (07/11/2015) [-]
*Pause* " you get some insight in what happens before the Lord of the rings. " The two stories are completely separate and just take place in the same world, they really have no parallels. *Unpause* I still don't think it was that great a movie, it was rushed all the time and stretched in the wrong places and characters that weren't really dynamic were made that way. Also something I noticed when I saw part one in theaters is how they blow their load on that soundtrack song. Every time something with action happens that start up that same song again and it just makes it feel stale compared to the much more varied LotR soundtrack.
#15 - sturmbeard (07/11/2015) [-]
I get that the two stories are seperate, but movie-wise they are connected. Wich is a poor excuse, I know And you not liking the movie is your opinion, wich is nice. You do bring up some verry good points tho', I kind like the Hobbit trio. For me they make a prequel to the lord of the rings, as of how the ring came to Bilbo.

And I can't say I'm the most qualified to argue about this, as I haven't read all the books, but I'mma do it anyways, since mother dropped me as a child.
User avatar
#16 - Awesomenessniss (07/11/2015) [-]
The only part that tells how Bilbo got the ring is 'Riddles in the Dark', the chapter where he meets Gollum. Perhaps you are unaware of how Tolkien's books got published: THe Hobbit was a bedtime story that he wrote for his children, all the various elements therein were just that story, the ring was just a ring and played no world-changing significance. He had to greatly be persuaded to even send it to a publisher. Lord of the Rings came to be published nearly twenty years later after a great amount of work and world building was put in to it. Anyway the Hobbit isn't really a prequel to LotR and should have been filmed as if it was an independent work.
#17 - sturmbeard (07/11/2015) [-]
Oh shit, then I resign from this discussion, I cleary have not nearly enough knowledge to do this
User avatar
#18 - Awesomenessniss (07/11/2015) [-]
#33 - Picture 07/11/2015 on These are the new ghostbusters +2
#10 - Unnecessary **** was thrown in to the Hobbit because Jackson w…  [+] (8 new replies) 07/11/2015 on Silmarillion Artwork +1
#11 - sturmbeard (07/11/2015) [-]
They aren't that bad tho'
User avatar
#12 - Awesomenessniss (07/11/2015) [-]
Lord of the Rings trilogy I adore, even though it had to leave some things out it is still an enjoyable cinematic experience, and there's the extended versions. The Hobbit is okay as a movie but not at all as a movie representation of the source material and in no way had to be stretched into a trilogy.
#13 - sturmbeard (07/11/2015) [-]
Yeah, but there was an attempt to tell the story to the crowd, although alot was left out. Also the romance "story" kinda ruins it But the visuals where good, and you get some insight in what happens before the Lord of the rings.

One cannot sit and think that all movies will be like the books, if people started thinking like that, there would be no point in making the movies, as someone will always be unhappy. Either because something got left out, or something wasn't portrayed right.
User avatar
#14 - Awesomenessniss (07/11/2015) [-]
*Pause* " you get some insight in what happens before the Lord of the rings. " The two stories are completely separate and just take place in the same world, they really have no parallels. *Unpause* I still don't think it was that great a movie, it was rushed all the time and stretched in the wrong places and characters that weren't really dynamic were made that way. Also something I noticed when I saw part one in theaters is how they blow their load on that soundtrack song. Every time something with action happens that start up that same song again and it just makes it feel stale compared to the much more varied LotR soundtrack.
#15 - sturmbeard (07/11/2015) [-]
I get that the two stories are seperate, but movie-wise they are connected. Wich is a poor excuse, I know And you not liking the movie is your opinion, wich is nice. You do bring up some verry good points tho', I kind like the Hobbit trio. For me they make a prequel to the lord of the rings, as of how the ring came to Bilbo.

And I can't say I'm the most qualified to argue about this, as I haven't read all the books, but I'mma do it anyways, since mother dropped me as a child.
User avatar
#16 - Awesomenessniss (07/11/2015) [-]
The only part that tells how Bilbo got the ring is 'Riddles in the Dark', the chapter where he meets Gollum. Perhaps you are unaware of how Tolkien's books got published: THe Hobbit was a bedtime story that he wrote for his children, all the various elements therein were just that story, the ring was just a ring and played no world-changing significance. He had to greatly be persuaded to even send it to a publisher. Lord of the Rings came to be published nearly twenty years later after a great amount of work and world building was put in to it. Anyway the Hobbit isn't really a prequel to LotR and should have been filmed as if it was an independent work.
#17 - sturmbeard (07/11/2015) [-]
Oh shit, then I resign from this discussion, I cleary have not nearly enough knowledge to do this
User avatar
#18 - Awesomenessniss (07/11/2015) [-]
#8 - If you even have to ask that question then there is no hope of…  [+] (10 new replies) 07/11/2015 on Silmarillion Artwork -1
User avatar
#9 - enemyoftrn (07/11/2015) [-]
Well. you can't expect every single adapted film to stay true to their sources. Some things needed to be considered too. Whatever they were.
User avatar
#10 - Awesomenessniss (07/11/2015) [-]
Unnecessary shit was thrown in to the Hobbit because Jackson wanted to stretch a relatively short novel into a film trilogy. The amount of information and storytelling told in the Silmarillion is so vast and in depth that there is no chance all of it could be captured in film and every piece of information in the book is absolutely vital.
#11 - sturmbeard (07/11/2015) [-]
They aren't that bad tho'
User avatar
#12 - Awesomenessniss (07/11/2015) [-]
Lord of the Rings trilogy I adore, even though it had to leave some things out it is still an enjoyable cinematic experience, and there's the extended versions. The Hobbit is okay as a movie but not at all as a movie representation of the source material and in no way had to be stretched into a trilogy.
#13 - sturmbeard (07/11/2015) [-]
Yeah, but there was an attempt to tell the story to the crowd, although alot was left out. Also the romance "story" kinda ruins it But the visuals where good, and you get some insight in what happens before the Lord of the rings.

One cannot sit and think that all movies will be like the books, if people started thinking like that, there would be no point in making the movies, as someone will always be unhappy. Either because something got left out, or something wasn't portrayed right.
User avatar
#14 - Awesomenessniss (07/11/2015) [-]
*Pause* " you get some insight in what happens before the Lord of the rings. " The two stories are completely separate and just take place in the same world, they really have no parallels. *Unpause* I still don't think it was that great a movie, it was rushed all the time and stretched in the wrong places and characters that weren't really dynamic were made that way. Also something I noticed when I saw part one in theaters is how they blow their load on that soundtrack song. Every time something with action happens that start up that same song again and it just makes it feel stale compared to the much more varied LotR soundtrack.
#15 - sturmbeard (07/11/2015) [-]
I get that the two stories are seperate, but movie-wise they are connected. Wich is a poor excuse, I know And you not liking the movie is your opinion, wich is nice. You do bring up some verry good points tho', I kind like the Hobbit trio. For me they make a prequel to the lord of the rings, as of how the ring came to Bilbo.

And I can't say I'm the most qualified to argue about this, as I haven't read all the books, but I'mma do it anyways, since mother dropped me as a child.
User avatar
#16 - Awesomenessniss (07/11/2015) [-]
The only part that tells how Bilbo got the ring is 'Riddles in the Dark', the chapter where he meets Gollum. Perhaps you are unaware of how Tolkien's books got published: THe Hobbit was a bedtime story that he wrote for his children, all the various elements therein were just that story, the ring was just a ring and played no world-changing significance. He had to greatly be persuaded to even send it to a publisher. Lord of the Rings came to be published nearly twenty years later after a great amount of work and world building was put in to it. Anyway the Hobbit isn't really a prequel to LotR and should have been filmed as if it was an independent work.
#17 - sturmbeard (07/11/2015) [-]
Oh shit, then I resign from this discussion, I cleary have not nearly enough knowledge to do this
User avatar
#18 - Awesomenessniss (07/11/2015) [-]
#60 - But how long can John Cena move in the frozen time? 07/11/2015 on Return of the Dank WebM 10 +3
#863 - **Awesomenessniss used "*roll 1, DD Class*"** **Awesomeness… 07/09/2015 on Roll your RPG name 0
#862 - **Awesomenessniss used "*roll 1, rpg name*"** **Awesomeness…  [+] (1 new reply) 07/09/2015 on Roll your RPG name 0
User avatar
#863 - Awesomenessniss (07/09/2015) [-]
**Awesomenessniss used "*roll 1, DD Class*"**
**Awesomenessniss rolls Barbarian (Bbn)**