Replies

1 posted on 04/17/2014 3:26:00 PM PDT by Perdogg

To: DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis; fidelis; JDoutrider; Tax-chick; Altariel; Ann de IL

ping

2 posted on 04/17/2014 3:26:38 PM PDT by Perdogg (Ted Cruz-Rand Paul 2016)

To: Perdogg

Long movies should have long names ,LOL

4 posted on 04/17/2014 3:33:06 PM PDT by molson209 (Blank)

To: Perdogg

The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies

That makes the most sense.

5 posted on 04/17/2014 3:37:48 PM PDT by MUDDOG

To: Perdogg

The Hobbit: The part that could have been attached to the other two films and cut down to 2 hours, and made more sense.

6 posted on 04/17/2014 3:52:16 PM PDT by VanDeKoik

To: Perdogg

Much better name.

8 posted on 04/17/2014 4:04:53 PM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas ( Isaiah 22:22, Matthew 16:19, Revelation 3:7)

To: Perdogg

Why couldn’t the Hobbit just be ONE film?

11 posted on 04/17/2014 4:16:46 PM PDT by montag813

To: Perdogg

The second Hobbit film was so atrocious that it hardly matters what they call the third one. How about:

The Hobbit: An Unnecessary Fiasco

16 posted on 04/17/2014 5:00:56 PM PDT by Sicon ("All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." - G. Orwell)

To: Perdogg

The Hobbit: We want more of your money

17 posted on 04/17/2014 5:22:31 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794