The Hobbit Currently Sits At A Rating Of Just 62...

  • 139 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by sune_Gem (12463 posts) -
#2 Posted by tenaka2 (17013 posts) -

to much filler, bit of milking really, look at this pic, the hobbit is a short book, the lotr is a large trilogy. Three films each?

lotr

#3 Posted by Laihendi (5800 posts) -
Peter Jackson is a bold director who challenges convention and expectations. The status quo is hostile to such people, but they are the true visionaries and artists.
#4 Posted by thedarklinglord (662 posts) -
I was comfortable with them splitting the movie into two films, because I had doubts about whether or not they could do it justice with just one - unless it was 3+ hours long, which would ultimately get cut down drastically for the common audience. But when they said they were making The Hobbit into three films? Sadly, I rather expected the end product would be a muddled, watered down mess that simply felt wrong, if not an outright clusterf*ck of idiocy that had critics and fans frothing and howling in confusion, frustration, and gibbering rage. And the trailers have done absolutely nothing to get me excited for this. And that's really sad, considering what a fantasy geek I am.
#5 Posted by sune_Gem (12463 posts) -

I was comfortable with them splitting the movie into two films, because I had doubts about whether or not they could do it justice with just one - unless it was 3+ hours long, which would ultimately get cut down drastically for the common audience. But when they said they were making The Hobbit into three films? Sadly, I rather expected the end product would be a muddled, watered down mess that simply felt wrong, if not an outright clusterf*ck of idiocy that had critics and fans frothing and howling in confusion, frustration, and gibbering rage. And the trailers have done absolutely nothing to get me excited for this. And that's really sad, considering what a fantasy geek I am.thedarklinglord

I actually thought the trailers looked really good. Possibly even better than the original Lord of the Rings trailers, and I thought they were pretty awesome.

#6 Posted by Blue-Sky (10315 posts) -

Have you read any of the reviews?

10/13 gave it a fresh review for 75% rating.

But the 3 reviews that gave it a rotten rating were exceptionally harsh, one of them called it the phantom menance and complained about the frame rate. Really? Another one did nothing but bash the special effects, one guy even complained there wasn't enough females...I wouldn't read too much into those type of negative reviews.

But so far the major complaint being, it's too familiar to Lord of the Rings. That's expected. It's like complaining that the latest legend of Zelda isn't as revolutionary as Ocarina of Time. Well of course it wouldn't be. But so far everyone is saying it delivers on being the fantasy epic we were expecting. Just isn't as revolutionary. It delivers on being more of the same and that's fine by me. I love middle earth.

#7 Posted by jimkabrhel (15416 posts) -

Should be two films, not three. I'm sure it will be a visual feast, but 160 minutes for just the first film? That's far too much.

#8 Posted by themajormayor (25667 posts) -
Well LOTR trilogy sucked so I won't take the reviews too seriously
#9 Posted by sune_Gem (12463 posts) -

Have you read any of the reviews?

10/13 gave it a fresh review for 75% rating.

But the 3 reviews that gave it a rotten rating were exceptionally harsh, one of them called it the phantom menance and complained about the frame rate. Really? Another one did nothing but bash the special effects, one guy even complained there wasn't enough females...I wouldn't read too much into those type of negative reviews.

But so far the major complaint being, it's too familiar to Lord of the Rings. That's expected. It's like complaining that the latest legend of Zelda isn't as revolutionary as Ocarina of Time. Well of course it wouldn't be. But so far everyone is saying it delivers on being the fantasy epic we were expecting. Just isn't as revolutionary. It delivers on being more of the same and that's fine by me. I love middle earth.

Blue-Sky

Comparing it to Lord of the Rings is unfair. What can match up to near perfection?

#10 Posted by sune_Gem (12463 posts) -

Well LOTR trilogy sucked so I won't take the reviews too seriouslythemajormayor

Well I must say that your opinion is heaviliy in the minority on that one.

#11 Posted by themajormayor (25667 posts) -

[QUOTE="themajormayor"]Well LOTR trilogy sucked so I won't take the reviews too seriouslysune_Gem

Well I must say that your opinion is heaviliy in the minority on that one.

That's my point. Reviews are not everything, if anything at all.
#12 Posted by cslayer211 (833 posts) -
[QUOTE="sune_Gem"]

[QUOTE="themajormayor"]Well LOTR trilogy sucked so I won't take the reviews too seriouslythemajormayor

Well I must say that your opinion is heaviliy in the minority on that one.

That's my point. Reviews are not everything, if anything at all.

What did you like about them? I thought they were well done, and Jackson is a really good director.
#13 Posted by sune_Gem (12463 posts) -

[QUOTE="sune_Gem"]

[QUOTE="themajormayor"]Well LOTR trilogy sucked so I won't take the reviews too seriouslythemajormayor

Well I must say that your opinion is heaviliy in the minority on that one.

That's my point. Reviews are not everything, if anything at all.

Your entitled to your opinion and I wouldn't deny that, but to say it sucks is highly debatable in the eyes of many others is all I'm saying.

#14 Posted by themajormayor (25667 posts) -
[QUOTE="themajormayor"][QUOTE="sune_Gem"]

Well I must say that your opinion is heaviliy in the minority on that one.

cslayer211
That's my point. Reviews are not everything, if anything at all.

What did you like about them? I thought they were well done, and Jackson is a really good director.

I guess I liked the uhm nothing really.
#15 Posted by themajormayor (25667 posts) -

[QUOTE="themajormayor"][QUOTE="sune_Gem"]

Well I must say that your opinion is heaviliy in the minority on that one.

sune_Gem

That's my point. Reviews are not everything, if anything at all.

Your entitled to your opinion and I wouldn't deny that, but to say it sucks is highly debatable in the eyes of many others is all I'm saying.

Well I was exagerating. They're entertaining and all. But not more than that. Nothing special
#16 Posted by Celldrax (14548 posts) -

I'm not too worried. I've probably watched each LOTR film at least 15 times each, so I know I can easily sit through another three films set within the same universe. And even if the movies don't end up being the masterpieces that people are expecting, I hardly expect them to be bad films either.

#17 Posted by dodgerblue13 (20836 posts) -
Though The Hobbit is a comparatively smaller text, a lot of it is surprisingly action based. Much of LotR is journey. Plus, from what I hear, Jackson intends to make The Hobbit trilogy blend seamlessly into the LotR trilogy. That means he will undoubtedly add other Tolkien background information into The Hobbit trilogy in order to create a sextet. Plus he's bringing in characters who were not in The Hobbit, so additional scenes are clearly going to be added. And I'm sure he'll have a long transitioning conclusion after the Battle of Five Armies. It would be impossible for Jackson to base the trilogy solely on the text. Also, if any of this sounds unappealing to you, you don't have to watch the movies.
#18 Posted by hiphops_savior (7784 posts) -
In all fairness, the Hobbit was far more whimsical and lighthearted compared to the LOTR trilogy.
#20 Posted by Netherscourge (16328 posts) -

Todd McCarthy didn't like it that much apparently.

That's not a good sign - he's a top critic too.

Another guy called it the Phantom Menace of the Rings series. OUCH.

The problem, IMO, is that the BEST part of the book are the middle and ending.

The beginning to the Hobbit is pretty much fluffy and goofy. It's not until the group gets into Mirkwood that the story really get's interesting and much more dark.

#21 Posted by CreasianDevaili (3991 posts) -
Always wondered where ratings mattered for movies. Didn't the Transformers trilogy downplay the importance of movie critics? The Hobbit is going to make tons. Each one. So is it better to watch critically acclaimed movies you don't enjoy or to enjoy watching movies critics call medicore or meh?
#22 Posted by dave123321 (33576 posts) -
Should have been expected when they casted Colbert
#23 Posted by dave123321 (33576 posts) -

Have you read any of the reviews?

10/13 gave it a fresh review for 75% rating.

But the 3 reviews that gave it a rotten rating were exceptionally harsh, one of them called it the phantom menance and complained about the frame rate. Really? Another one did nothing but bash the special effects, one guy even complained there wasn't enough females...I wouldn't read too much into those type of negative reviews.

But so far the major complaint being, it's too familiar to Lord of the Rings. That's expected. It's like complaining that the latest legend of Zelda isn't as revolutionary as Ocarina of Time. Well of course it wouldn't be. But so far everyone is saying it delivers on being the fantasy epic we were expecting. Just isn't as revolutionary. It delivers on being more of the same and that's fine by me. I love middle earth.

Blue-Sky
I think the frame rate could be a legitimate issue depending how it looks
#24 Posted by sammyjenkis898 (27998 posts) -
Some of the reviews seem to be reviewing the format instead of the film. Still, the critics that do like the film seem to be luke-warm on it overall.
#25 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

to much filler, bit of milking really, look at this pic, the hobbit is a short book, the lotr is a large trilogy. Three films each?

lotr

tenaka2

That's a pretty silly comparison really. Such a comparison assumes a more or less direct page-to-screen translation, rather than an adaptation. 'The Hobbit' may be the shorter text, but it's much more compact than 'the Lord of the Rings' is. LotR contains a lot of sections of not much happening (the Council of Elrond, for instance, goes on forever and is nothing but conversation). There's definately enough in 'the Hobbit' to make two films at least, and Jackson is delving into other Tolkien sources that aren't directly part of those stories (such as the appendicies that Tolkien placed at the back of the 'Return of the King' book) to fill out the universe and connect 'the Hobbit' with 'the Lord of the Rings'.

#26 Posted by TheFallenDemon (13932 posts) -

If Christy Lemire gives this one a negative review as well, she might as well purchase her own body bag at this point.

#27 Posted by tenaka2 (17013 posts) -

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

to much filler, bit of milking really, look at this pic, the hobbit is a short book, the lotr is a large trilogy. Three films each?

lotr

worlock77

That's a pretty silly comparison really. Such a comparison assumes a more or less direct page-to-screen translation, rather than an adaptation. 'The Hobbit' may be the shorter text, but it's much more compact than 'the Lord of the Rings' is. LotR contains a lot of sections of not much happening (the Council of Elrond, for instance, goes on forever and is nothing but conversation). There's definately enough in 'the Hobbit' to make two films at least, and Jackson is delving into other Tolkien sources that aren't directly part of those stories (such as the appendicies that Tolkien placed at the back of the 'Return of the King' book) to fill out the universe and connect 'the Hobbit' with 'the Lord of the Rings'.

Well its also based on the reviews all of which mention the filler element, not that it matters to me, I have the extended edition of the lotr films and i am a big fan,

However there is no avoiding the obvious drive behind dragging these films out, cash.

#28 Posted by sammyjenkis898 (27998 posts) -

If Christy Lemire gives this one a negative review as well, she might as well purchase her own body bag at this point.

TheFallenDemon
Nah.
#29 Posted by Blazerdt47 (5661 posts) -

Well LOTR trilogy sucked so I won't take the reviews too seriouslythemajormayor

tumblr_mddy0tmPxH1rxd8rh.gif

.

#30 Posted by Horgen (110001 posts) -
Well the first part of the book is boring.
#31 Posted by TheFallenDemon (13932 posts) -

It's currently at 71% on RT, wonder if the comments on the neg reviews will be as entertaining as TDKR and The Avengers.

#32 Posted by sammyjenkis898 (27998 posts) -

It's currently at 71% on RT, wonder if the comments on the neg reviews will be as entertaining as TDKR and The Avengers.

TheFallenDemon

The comments are disabled, thankfully.

#33 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

However there is no avoiding the obvious drive behind dragging these films out, cash.

tenaka2

Certainly. Of course cash is the whole drive of making these films (or any commercially released film) in the first place.

#34 Posted by megam (457 posts) -
Peter Jackson is a bold director who challenges convention and expectations. The status quo is hostile to such people, but they are the true visionaries and artists.Laihendi
Outside of LotR, has any other film directed by Peter Jackson been anything above average?
#35 Posted by sammyjenkis898 (27998 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"]Peter Jackson is a bold director who challenges convention and expectations. The status quo is hostile to such people, but they are the true visionaries and artists.megam
Outside of LotR, has any other film directed by Peter Jackson been anything above average?

Heavenly Creatures.
#36 Posted by lightleggy (15870 posts) -
up yo 71 now in RT
#37 Posted by SirWander (5176 posts) -

up yo 71 now in RTlightleggy

with an average rating of 6.6

#38 Posted by chilly-chill (8902 posts) -

At least you could be pleasantly surprised rather than disappointed..

#39 Posted by GIJames248 (2176 posts) -

Todd McCarthy didn't like it that much apparently.

That's not a good sign - he's a top critic too.

Another guy called it the Phantom Menace of the Rings series. OUCH.

The problem, IMO, is that the BEST part of the book are the middle and ending.

The beginning to the Hobbit is pretty much fluffy and goofy. It's not until the group gets into Mirkwood that the story really get's interesting and much more dark.

Netherscourge

Yeah, the first part is an enjoyable outset, but not something you could make a movie about. This smells of idiotic cash grab by Jackson, which I expected when he wanted to make three movies out a three hundred page children's book, but I had hoped he somehow came up with a way to make it work.

#40 Posted by chilly-chill (8902 posts) -

[QUOTE="themajormayor"]Well LOTR trilogy sucked so I won't take the reviews too seriouslyBlazerdt47

tumblr_mddy0tmPxH1rxd8rh.gif

.

I love that show.
#41 Posted by fueled-system (6246 posts) -
As long as it is not overwhelmingly negative, I don't care. Paul Blart got terrible reviews and I loved that movie
#42 Posted by johnd13 (7889 posts) -

I honestly don' t expect it to be as epic as the original LOTR trilogy. But still I' m a huge fan of the world Tolkien created and I loved the book so I don' t give a damn about reviews and ratings. 3 movies is indeed kinda "too much" and an obvious attempt to milk whatever they can.

I guess that means more movies for us fans :D

#43 Posted by Aljosa23 (24525 posts) -

Jackson is a hack that hasn't made a good film in over a decade so it's not surprising his new one would be mediocre.

#44 Posted by m0zart (11562 posts) -

It's 71 right now on RottenTomatoes. Still lower than I expected though.

#45 Posted by m0zart (11562 posts) -

[QUOTE="megam"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]Peter Jackson is a bold director who challenges convention and expectations. The status quo is hostile to such people, but they are the true visionaries and artists.sammyjenkis898
Outside of LotR, has any other film directed by Peter Jackson been anything above average?

Heavenly Creatures.

Don't forget "Meet the Feebles"

#46 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (15885 posts) -

So, what's in the movie that's not in teh book and vice versa. I figured with three films for such a short book, there's bound to be a lot of butchering of the book again like the LOTR trilogy.

#47 Posted by Planeforger (15454 posts) -

I get the feeling that Guillermo del Toro could have bumped up that rating by about 10 points, if not more.
At the very least, he'd be capable of telling six chapters of a children's book in less than almost-three-hours.

Don't get me wrong, Peter Jackson is fantastic at filming over-long panoramic shots of people walking...but he also managed to make the last two LOTR films extremely boring (and failed to capitalise on the second book's cliffhanger ending), so I really wish he'd have stood down on this one and given a more creative/vibrant/dare-I-say-talented director a chance.

#48 Posted by Laihendi (5800 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]Peter Jackson is a bold director who challenges convention and expectations. The status quo is hostile to such people, but they are the true visionaries and artists.megam
Outside of LotR, has any other film directed by Peter Jackson been anything above average?

King Kong

So, what's in the movie that's not in teh book and vice versa. I figured with three films for such a short book, there's bound to be a lot of butchering of the book again like the LOTR trilogy.

jun_aka_pekto

LOTR movies were flawed because material from the book was cut out. Jackson putting every bit of material he can into The Hobbit is a great thing. Casual movie-watchers who don't really care about Tolkien's world and are only interested in a couple hours of easy entertainment will not be pleased with these movies. Due to the success of the LOTR films, Jackson doesn't have to pander to those people anymore. This is good.

#49 Posted by jimkabrhel (15416 posts) -

[QUOTE="megam"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] Outside of LotR, has any other film directed by Peter Jackson been anything above average? Laihendi

King Kong

So, what's in the movie that's not in teh book and vice versa. I figured with three films for such a short book, there's bound to be a lot of butchering of the book again like the LOTR trilogy.

jun_aka_pekto

LOTR movies were flawed because material from the book was cut out. Jackson putting every bit of material he can into The Hobbit is a great thing. Casual movie-watchers who don't really care about Tolkien's world and are only interested in a couple hours of easy entertainment will not be pleased with these movies. Due to the success of the LOTR films, Jackson doesn't have to pander to those people anymore. This is good.

Your logic is flawed. The LotR books were bloated, not least with poetry.

Doing a page by page (or panel by panel) conversion from book to screen may not work. Look at The Watchmen. It was incredibly faithful to the source material, but the movie was mediocre.

#50 Posted by m0zart (11562 posts) -

[QUOTE="megam"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]Peter Jackson is a bold director who challenges convention and expectations. The status quo is hostile to such people, but they are the true visionaries and artists.Laihendi

Outside of LotR, has any other film directed by Peter Jackson been anything above average?

King Kong

Which was by far the best King Kong.