Your Comments on "Why The Hobbit Sucks" 

Are you telling me even movies have DLC now?

Damn, that zooming out shot of Jackson sat exhausted and alone on a vast and gaudy set surrounded by ruin is saddest visual metaphor for this trilogy ever

To me the first movie was the best. Especially the scenes in the Shire. Those scenes captured the feel of the book for me.

But at least Jackson was honest about it

The worst part was that the movies had some really good components that are just overshadowed by big problems

if i would describe the hobbit trilogy in one sentence: missed opportunity

Any plans to do an analysis on what makes The Lord of the Rings films so great?

If only Jackson had the time to create another masterpiece on the level of Lord of the Rings

I don't think that Jackson gets enough credit for actually managing to make a film trilogy given the circumstances he found himself in.

Does anyone have an issue with colours in the Hobbit trilogy? Some scenes look like the camera lenses were wet during the shooting. Light parts of the picture look terrible.

Auto subs interpret "Saruman" as "sour mom"

The fact Jackson stepped in at the last moment and was forced to make it up as he went along explains alot - but it doesn't excuse anything. The films were an insult both to the ticket-buying public and to Tolkien's legacy.

The only disappointment with the Hobbit trilogy was that Jackson didn't use the Benny Hill song during the escape from the Goblins. What a tragedy that was.

I think the best point you've made in your reviews is regarding the philosophy of adaptation. It really looks like Peter Jackson didn't know what he was doing from the very beginning of pre-production: he had never decided whether he's shooting a fairytale (and thus staying true to the source material), or a prequel to the Lord of the Rings (which would require extensive re-writing). Both decisions would be reasonable and could result in a very good movie(s). Jackson decided to do both and neither at the same time. The films never had a chance of turning out well that way.

I think one of the fundamental flaws of the films was trying to balance screen time between 13 dwarves and a Hobbit. They didn't get the balance right and instead of the touching story of a hobbit trying to save his home land, (like in Lord Of The Rings) we follow a grumpy, emotionless dwarf motivated by greed for 9 hours of tacky CGI battles and poor character development.

Lord of the Rings used more nature, less CGI, it looked more real, the Hobbit looked "magically" unreal

The movies are still a bitter disappointment. LOTR was a such a masterpiece.

I miss when movies were not 90% shitty noticeable CGI and used half CGI and half real world. so sick of it

I definitely feel sorry for Jackson now. I saw him as George Lucas, when really he was Sam Raimi in Spiderman 3. Lucas had complete control and completely fucked up. Jackson had studios ruin shit, even while they refused to pay him. There are some great visual imagery we can take from The Hobbit films though, I just try to picture them with the actual plot of the original. It boggles the mind they were forced to stretch it to a trilogy, I guess that's what a lot of that love triangle was about. By the time of the extended Battle of the Five Armies one, I think they stopped caring because of all the retarded stuff they do like the chariot with spikes on decapitating six mini-trolls/whatever they are and Gandalf's staff short circuiting followed by the retarded death of Alfred.

I could tell immediately that Peter Jackson didn't know what to do just by his facial expressions and body language. He just didn't look like he was committed to the production of this Trilogy at all.

Something else that bothered me about the Hobbit trilogy: there's something really weird about the cinematography that I can't quite put my finger on. The LOTR trilogy has a very painterly look to it - as if you're watching a cinematic oil painting. The Hobbit on the other hand, looks weirdly flat and low contrast. Laketown just looks incredibly...blaaaah somehow.

battle of five armies was to me just one long-ass battle scene with the build up and the falling action added on. it was really tedious, and detracted from my appreciation of the previous two hobbit films as the trilogy was not completed in a satisfying way. this is my opijnion

Thanks one more time for your wonderful analysis of why The Hobbit failed as a film. Also, I think it would be great to analyse also the technical stuff (48 fps, 5K, digital cameras, strange use of colours etc.).

"Buy the extended edition" - Christopher Lee

The movie sucks because it looks and feels like a video game movie.

It's crazy how much Bilbo is shoved to the side in these movies. I remember watching Unexpected Journey in the theater, and thinking "Isn't this movie called 'The Hobbit'?" around the point when Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond, and Saruman are having their chat at Rivendell.

Understanding what Jackson was going through, how he didn't even have completed scripts because he was thrown into these movies, makes me surprised that they're watchable at all. I think that is a testament to his abilities in its own way as much as LoTR.

I didn’t like hobbit because it felt like a game. 1. Accept Quest 2. Tutorial to ride a pony 3. Outrun enemies 4. Diplomacy with elves Ect Seriously the running and tap out enemies felt like Mario but looked like Skyrim. Also had too much CGI

My problem with the Hobbit my favorite book of all times is that the dwarves looked ridiculous

The Films would’ve been better if Peter had more time they would’ve been as legendary as the lord of the rings. The studio gave him 2 months for The Hobbit. Before then. Jackson had 3 years to make Lord of the rings. So he didn’t know what was happening and what he was going to do.

This film was a shambles, and I really pity Peter Jackson for it. You can tell he just had no passion for it, and that is either bc of his stressful lack of prep and making it up as he went along, or bc of how much time (like 18 years collectively) he spent on it. Pre-production is THE MOST important part of filmmaking, period. If you fail there then the rest of the film will suffer because of it.

Here's the thing about The Hobbit (the book). It says it right in the title, it's about the damn hobbit. The book is Bilbo's story. It's not the dwarves story, it's not about Gandalf, it's not even about Middle Earth. The book tells a very character focused story, and we follow Bilbo's perspective from start to finish. This WORKS for the story that this book is trying to tell, since it is so much smaller in scope than the LotR. (This was written as a children's book, after all, not an epic war novel.) For the purposes of movie making, it might not have been so bad if they had cut away from Bilbo every once in a while to show us other things that were happening elsewhere, if they had still kept the focus of the film mainly on THE HOBBIT, for fs sake. It seems like maybe about 90 percent of the problems with these movies could have been solved by simply not trying to make the story into something other than what it was meant to be.

Your reviews on these movies were great. You were almost right about everything. Besides all the things you pointed out, the trilogy just doesnt feel right. It didn't live up to its expectations and I'm not even talking about the inaccuracies compared to the books. This whole trilogy just seems to be one big cartoon designed to make the viewer go 'what the hell is that' instead of bringing a good strong story.

Your review really was cathartic to me. I love the Lord of the Rings movies, to the point I have the extended editions, books on how the movie was made, posters, and documentaries on it. I love every single thing about it, and seeing the hobbit movies was so dissapointing it made me plain and simple sad: Sad it wasn't what I wanted them to be, sad that it didn't hold a candle to the LotR, sad that it lacked the heart of the original trilogy and sad to see PJ in the position he was. To this day I keep watching your hobbit review from time to time just because I really like them. So yeah, thanks for that review, and I hope to see you soon. It's been a while since your last video

Out of the three films, I feel the first one is the best. Coincidentally, it's also the one that sticks closest to the source material, and the one that has the most influence from Del Toro...

Before I watched this series of videos I honestly wasn't sure whether I wanted to watch them since I know that your channel is very persuasive and The Hobbit Trilogy are my favourite films of all time for personal reasons. However after watching this series I would like to say congratulations to all the hard work you put into these videos, they were so well made and clearly had a lot of passion behind them. The Hobbit trilogy will remain to be my favourite films of all time but you have opened my eyes to how a film can have many flaws but still be loved. So again thankyou for your review, I'm going to go re-watch them now and bask in the glorious world of Middle Earth!

But Sage! What about the various Hobbit fan edits? For instance, JRR Tolkien's The Hobbit is considered by many to be the definitive adaptation of The Hobbit What the L do you think about fan edits? Great video by the way.

the "reading books is just bs comment!" is pure gold

I didn't watch all of your Hobbit videos because, quite simply, I cannot stand watching more of The Hobbit. One or two of your videos was enough for me to confirm my suspicions through your excellent analysis. However, I appreciate that you made this video because it speaks to your convictions and that you aren't willing to be cheated by big studios. I commend you for that.

Most people don't watch the extended editions so you can't rely on that to fill in plot points. A movie needs to be well defined even without the extended edition which is really just there to add something to the already solid story

After watching your brilliant series, I'm even gladder that I didn't shell out the hefty ticket price for the second and third part when all I heard were negative reviews. It's wonderful to be able to see why they were negative without having to sit through 6 (7? 8?) hours of films thanks to your in-depth look at this! I'm an aspiring screenwriter and filmmaker, and I've learned LOTS from this series! I couldn't agree more on what you said about making promises to the audience and having to fulfil them/satisfy them before the credits roll. (Or after, in case of the MCU, hehe^^) Can't wait to dive more into your channel! :D Best from Berlin!

I've loved the book since I was a child and was really excited to watch the movie! (Also lotr was my favourite movie of all time.) Then I watched the hobbit trilogy. Let's just say this, it's the worst trilogy I've ever seen (yeah 'twilight' get outta of here!) I thought the hobbit had soooo much potential to be soooo good, but istead they used the well written pages of the script to wipe their dirty asses with! (too far?) Me and my dad discussed for hours about how they should have made only two movies, cut out the pointless nonsense and focus on the main character Bilbo instead of F***ing Legolass jumping on rocks! Then just yesterday I found your seires and I must, YOU'RE AWESOME!

I walked out of the final movie when I was at the movies. I was so bored, in the middle of the final battle, and especially disappointed what had been made. It was like pissing on LOTR to make them

I completely respect everyone who worked so hard on these movies. I don’t like the trilogy but the cast and crew earned my money. As long as I know a film team worked hard, they have my respect.

No one seems to acknowledge all the lore ret-cons to make Azog a villain. It was so forced. It’s because they made the movie about violent conflict and revenge, and no an adventure of a hobbit.

I guess that does explain why all the scenes with Bilbo are very clear and to the point; where as all the action scenes (which were made up and occasionally even forced for the sake of not wasting everyone's time standing around on set) are a complete fkn mess. Additionally explains the use of CGI, seeing as all they could really do was have the characters fighting green guys and add everything in later on. - It explains why the things they chose to do were done badly. It does not explain why they chose to do those things. Why they chose to focus on action and sweeping landscape shots, rather than dialogue through referential exposition (as with the books). It does not explain why they had all the terrible characters forced in, nor does it justify "Bard's family troubles" and "interspecies romance" that do nothing for the plot nor the story. It does not explain why Logolas rides hundreds of miles away to Gundabad to witness their drama for the audience, and then rides all the way back in what seems like a few days and barely arrives in front of the "marching" orcs. In both trilogies, we got an action packed fan-fiction interpretation; one was made well, the other was made poorly. Though fan-fiction in tone and quality they remain. - Thanks for the insightful videos.

Having a script and a clear sense of what is going within an action scene seem basic requirements for a good movie. One wishes Jackson had just said, when asked to step in to save the mess, "I prefer not to." And I completely agree: I'm not spending more money to find out what happened to objects and characters you didn't make me care about in the first damn nine hours of storytelling.

I just watched the full review. I have SO MUCH RESPECT for the time and effort you put into your videos. Whether I agree with your opinion or not, you are really out here working my man, and you have my infinite respect for that. I don't think I've ever seen a RU-vidr doing as much with their videos as you. WOW.

For me the most disappointing part was the escape from Woodland Realms. I was hoping for some very dark tension borderline claustrophobic (I know it's a kids movie) while the dwarves were escaping in the barrels. Instead we got that game'ish action scene which made me laugh at how bad it was...

I still love these movies despite the flaws. Wish I could say the same for the new Star Wars.

Hi! I am a big fan of the Hobbit and actually even more of its appendices, yet on a lot of arguments I agreed with you. I am glad you made this vid, because it resolved all the points I felt that you were wrong about. Thank you so much for this series, it is so clear and thorough.

I agree 100% with your opinion of the Arkenstone. It bothered me so much that the issue had not been resolved that I consider it one of the biggest plot holes I've ever seen in ANY movie. And no, I haven't seen the extended versions because I've already seen the Hobbit trilogy and don't care to see it again. They had their chance and they blew it.

LOTR was brilliant in so many ways. The extended versions were just perfect. Everything that was cut was understandable. The movies work in both versions.

aww i feel so bad for Pete now. it's great to see him talk about it that honestly though

I like how you mentioned an unspoken agreement between the audience and the movie maker. There are certain things the fans want to know, and although the fans do not always want what's best; there is certain extent where the film should please the fans.

they split a short book in 3 movies....and i need to watch the extended edition to know the "true ending" ?thx but no thx

Jackson done goofed. 😂😂😂

I have to heavily disagree about cutting Saruman from the Return of the King. Saruman is (arguably) the second biggest villain in Lord of the Rings, and we need to know what happens to him. The scene that was cut, wraps up all loose ends with Saruman and Grìma Wormtongue. Maybe it's just me, but I would've like this scene to be in the theatrical release. Instead of what we got, which was just Gandalf saying, "Don't worry guys, leaving this evil dude with all of his powers unchecked will definitely not bite us in the ass later. Now, let's go deal with Sauron, because some idiots in the past left him with his powers unchecked and now it's come to bite us in the ass."

Lmao your first point about the arkenstone made me laugh so hard. I’ve NEVER thought about that and you are so right.

The Desolation of Smaug was honestly so bad I couldn't bring myself to see the last one. I was so pissed off by the end, it was everything I could do not to just walk out of the second one.

I think is actually easier to explian: I would rewatch Lord of the Rings endlessly. I do not want to rewatch The Hobbit.

5:40 that dead eyed thousand yard stare though... he clearly did not want to be making these movies for any reason other than $$

As a Tolkien fan, I can say that the trailer for DOS had got me so hyped. My brother and I watched it together and were jumping up and down the whole time. Like you said, I have sympathy for what Jackson had to deal with, but overall, I couldn't get behind it, no matter how much I wanted to.

I honestly think the hobbit should be a tv show, due to its episodic structure.

Kind of heartbreaking that it turned out like it did, like if he had the time and preparation it could've turned out great

The worst thing about The Hobbit movies is that they totally disregard the Middle-Earth timeline and canon.

As someone who loved these movies I gotta say I enjoyed these videos. With other people that didn't like these movies they seem so angry and mean spirited. But you approach it in an intelligent and well-spoken manor. You give fair and strong criticisms some of which I can actually agree with.

You make a very good point when comparing LotR to Hobbit. The extended editions flesh stuff out and add flavour, but are not necessary. One issue is that the gift giving is cut from the original FotR, but that seems like more of a screw-up than intentionally cutting up the film to sell you the extra bits.

When movies start having paid DLC

How in the hell can something like this even happen when there's that much money on board? Don't the studioheads who finance these things know how much work goes to plan how the movie, scene, or even a sequence goes. They can't just expect that a talented filmmaker who's thrown on board at the last minute to craft a perfect masterpiece, without first taking some time to pre-plan the film.

I will always love the Hobbit Movies(and the film adaptation of Middle Earth as a whole) but I agree with your series of arguments against certain elements. It's definitely not immune to criticism, even for a fan. I appreciated your putting my thoughts into coherent words, and giving me something to think about in terms of storytelling. I thought you did excellent on the whole thing.

I watched your whole series on The Hobbit today and afterward I watched the JRR Tolkien's The Hobbit fan edit of the movies (which I think is an improvement on the original). I think that both your videos and the fan edit show so clearly that less is more. When you trim all the unnecessary fat of a story what you have left is a stronger story that the viewer is more interested in. This is a great lesson for me personally as I am studying creative writing, so thanks for the videos they were great (actually I like everything I've seen on your channel)

I no it does not matter anymore but I want to point out that Jacksson did say no to 7 weeks of pre poduction that could probubly have helpt a lot.

I liked an Unexpected Journey. I thought it was fine, it had some of the more enjoyable thematic moments... but it goes pretty hard downhill from there. I agree with you about the lack of dramatic tension and how that hinders you from getting into the scene. I also REALLY liked how you referenced a GREAT moment in the fellowship to counterbalance the tension-less issues of the chase through goblin town. I also think that that was an issue in Dr. Strange, the lack of tension, in large part because of the three dimensional nature of the magic and the warping of space, made it very difficult to follow. I appreciate reviews like yours, I like the insight they provide, and even if I come across something you or someone else does that I disagree with... I can still like it. I try and be open minded, actually open minded not just say I am open minded, ignore your point and wait my turn to yell back at you... that is not how I like to act or represent myself. Anyways, this was fun, I agree with most of your points here and I really want to do a special shout out to the one you make about your previous videos: it was VERY cathartic to hear someone who had articulated their points talk about feelings i had about the other films, even the first one... the one I liked. It helps to have clarity in one's mind about something that caused such duress, which seeing a book I love reduced down to pretty much nonsense, is incredibly disheartening. So thank you for that.

These videos have certainly been cathartic for me. Good work.

I really enjoyed the movies. They were a fun romp, though they got weird at times.

Yeah while it's wrong to blame a director like Jackson for everything wrong with a movie, it is fair to do so imo. I mean when a movie is a success usually the director takes all the credit for it doing well. They are usually considered to have the last word on anything put into the movie, so it is their fault for the most part. Some times producers can stick their noses in but with a big name like Jackson you know he didn't have to put up with to much studio BS. He had free reign to do what ever he wanted, and this is what we got.

So why don't you apply this logic to LotR? They left out some important stuff like setting up and explaining the elves leaving Middle Earth early in Fellowship of the Ring. They left out Saruman's death from The Return of the King. He's just forgotten about in the theatrical version. What about Eowyn being healed after being wounded in battle? Or what about the important scenes with Boromir and Faramir and their father that help set up why he treats Faramir badly later on? I guess the movie's bad and we shouldn't care about it being in the Extended Edition because those scenes should've been in the theatrical cut. They're just trying to make us buy the same movie twice! It's like game DLC but for films! There's an unspoken promise by the filmmaker that the conflicts raised in the story will be adequately resolved by the end of the movie (or in some cases properly set up in the first place)! They amputated a finished movie just to force me to pay for it again! It doesn't matter that the problem is fixed in the definitive version of the movie, it's forever a piece of garbage! If your criticisms also apply to LotR, then admit they are also bad movies and their Extended Editions are the result of greed, or set aside these criticisms and use better ones instead. Now, The Hobbit is not as good as The Lord of the Rings, but it's not as bad as you make it out to be. It feels like the same expansive world as LotR. There are exciting action scenes. Good performances. Consistent looks for returning locations, consistent casting where it makes sense. The overall plot is the same as the book, and the added subplots are coherent, at least in the Extended Editions. The stuff that ties it in more heavily with LotR is based on the source material, so no problems there. If Peter Jackson had better circumstances to make the movies, they'd be better. Given the time constraints, immense pressure, and severe sleep deprivation, it is a miracle that this film trilogy is as good as it is. Tolkien would still hate it though.

8:00 this is the best line of the video

Thank you very much for making all these vidios! I think you spend very much time and effort in making them and formulating your opinion and that is commendable. One interesting point I think you try to make, is that there are differences between 'cause', 'blame' and 'excuse'. As you mention, the cause for the problems in the hobbit is that there was not enough time to prepare everything. Who to blame is a complicated matter, and in the end, doesn't really matter, because it is not a good 'excuse'. Imagine the president accidentally firing nukes at another country, and then saying 'I'm sorry, I didn't sleep well last night'. Once again, thank you very much for your work, it's great!

I still think that even if Peter Jackson *were* fully to blame, that your comments about him being greedy were over the line and hurt the quality of the video. The personal commentary on specific people was the only thing that turned me off about the Plinkett reviews, and it was the only thing that turned me off about your review. Though I *will* give you props for omitting the "kidnapped women in the basement" -based humor.

6:04 Hello, darkness, my old friend...

As a writer, I can really appreciate your analysis on this trilogy. I personally enjoyed the movie, but I can definitely see the faults that you've described and agree with the reasoning as to why they are shortcomings to begin with.

So sad, at this late date, even adding The precious Legolas could not save those movies for me!!

Have you seen the Maple Films cut? It takes the three films and their extended editions and cuts them down to a nice, manageable 4:19 mins with a mid-film intermission. Honestly, it was GREAT! I feel like it finds the perfect balance and actually rescues a terrible trilogy and makes one really great film. The pacing is fixed. The extraneous characters are removed. It's focused. It's a hundred times more enjoyable.

Your Hobbit sucks thing was a god send. It perfectly captures everything I disliked about them.

Peter Jackson was rushed by Warner bros to get the movie finished which is why we got what we got.

I'M SO HAPPY, I hated the Hobbit trilogy. I'm not even interested in the extended versions.

I agree with you good sir in almost every way concerning these films, though I would submit to you one more irritation concerning filming and one concerning characters. Personally the 3D digital filming to me made the whole thing seem very cartoonish and to me film seems more real to me. And concerning character the thing I would have changed was the incredibly forced elf/dwarf romance, that is to say not have one. We don't need it and there is no way someone falls in love with someone in a day, at least not enough to risk their life and existing relationships for them. This whole segment of the movies is in sharp contrast to the LoTR trilogy regarding love which triumphs long standing romance (Aragorn&Arwen) over new impulsive one (Aragorn&Eowen). What should have been done was make Legolas and Tauriel romantically involved but make Tauriel more innocent and fascinated by dwarves and dwarven culture and thus sympathetic to their cause and more willing to explore Erabor. Then have her die saving Legolas' life in the battle of the five armies which is why Legolas leaves the Greenwood to wander for 60 years and why he personally is prejudiced against dwarves in the LoTR. Thoughts?

I think the biggest blame should fall on the movie companies for wanting to push out 3 movies instead of the planned 2 so they can make more money out of it. Next in line is Del Toro for bailing on the project. I know he only signed up for 2 movies and everything but I doubt he really cared about The Hobbit enough to begin with, if he could just abandon 2 years of work that way.

As much as I love these films, you argue your points well. It's a shame, because that theatrical version of Five Armies is so neutered that it left a huge bad taste in people's mouths. I watch the extended and am baffled by some of the omissions. However, I still think the Hobbit trilogy works as a prequel, in that it does enrich the cinematic Lord of the Rings in a way that other prequels don't. Great channel.

Thank you sir for giving such a great analysis of why these films were not successful. The one thing that I will never understand about Jackson, is that, he had a novel to go by to tell this story, but still, in his own words, "Didn't know what the hell he was doing", lol. Still, just boggles my mind. To finish, as a long time Tolkiendil, I couldn't agree with you more on the Hobbit trilogy.

When I first watched the movies, I started to wonder why everyone was fighting like in those overdone Asian movies. They're elves and dwarves, not friggin ninjas. It feels like they borrowed sensationalizing aesthetic elements from Asian-style movies, in particular the high-dexterity, perfectly choreographed acrobatic fighting style. It may be connected to why there is a lack of suspense in the fighting scenes: If the heroes are established as godlike and undefeatable, battles just become an indulgent display of their awesomeness. I always found Sun Wukong's Journey to the West to be endlessly tedious, exactly because he always wins without breaking a sweat, and without ever being in real danger. If they did this ninja-fighting to kowtow to the Chinese movie market, they totally sold out the substance of the movies to make a few more bucks. But making more bucks seems to be a prevailing theme in the Hobbit movies - it puts the dwarves' love for gold to shame.

I honestly hate the Hobbit movies a lot more than the Star Wars Prequels

I liked them, and I liked your analysis, mostly because I get to go in depth into the world.

By far the best and most academic movie criticism I have encountered. It would be a great experience for me to actually meet you to learn from your analysis :). Bet we're living on the other side of the planet tho lol

The Hobbit films disappointed me from the first film, simply because of visuals. I understand Greenscreens will always be a thing in modern, big budget film making, but the Hobbit hurts for me to watch (and not in a overly dramatic sense, it actually hurts my fucking eyes), with so many jarring things popping out of every scene, with so many garishly bright golds and greens shinning almost constantly. In @videogamedunkey 's new video he describes Halo 5 as having too much shit on the screen, and making it impossible to really tell what is going on, and it describes exactly how I feel about the Hobbit films. They are just way to many things on the screen for my eyes to comfortably focus on Look at LOTR and you'll see very few scenes where unnaturally bright colors make it physically painful to watch, only in very few occasions does this happen. In the Hobbit, it's almost every single scene that I see so many lens-flares, and shimmers that it is just an eyesore to watch. Lastly, for a big budget film, they could have at least tried to make the CGI look real, many scenes with CGI animals, or the orcs are just embarrassing to see, and look like they weren't even rendered properly.

Jackson should remake the hobbit movies

SAGE! Thanks for your thorough review, and thanks for addressing these comments. As viewers we often take advantage of the content tossed on RU-vid and end up not appreciating well the content makers. Well, I appreciate you, dude! I'm that budding-filmmaker you mentioned, and going through the many aspects of the Hobbit with you has been very educational. I'm in the middle of a script I've been working on for a few months now, and watching your key points has made me evaluate some of my own character motives, actions and plotting in my writing. I really appreciate you sharing your knowledge and I pray for much success and strength on your future projects. Thanks, keep doing you and best wishes! You're awesome.

You're my hero :D I am binge watching all your videos... before I take out my notebook and watch them all again :)