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

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#-49 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
I'm not sure why people care so much about reviews. I'm totally confused as to why people care about review scores.
#-48 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -

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.

jimkabrhel

LOTR books are not bloated. The poetry added an element of realism to the story. Poetry was an important part of the cultures of the free people in middle earth.

#-47 Posted by jimkabrhel (15430 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] 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.

Laihendi

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.

LOTR books are not bloated. The poetry added an element of realism to the story. Poetry was an important part of the cultures of the free people.

Poetry = realism? In a a fantasy novel? You have got to be joking.

It fleshes out the culture a little, but Tolkein's powems were so very long and boring, that they didn't add anything of substance to the actual story.

#-46 Posted by Postal_Guy (2643 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.

Celldrax

This.

I also think people have been hyping this waaaay to much. In wich case itll end up in a dissapointment for lots of em

#-45 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

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.

jimkabrhel

LOTR books are not bloated. The poetry added an element of realism to the story. Poetry was an important part of the cultures of the free people.

Poetry = realism? In a a fantasy novel? You have got to be joking.

It fleshes out the culture a little, but Tolkein's powems were so very long and boring, that they didn't add anything of substance to the actual story.

It demonstrates the culture/values of the people being depicted in this books, hence the realism. The book is certainly not fast-paced and action-packed, but I don't see that as a flaw.
#-44 Posted by dave123321 (34368 posts) -
I'm not sure why people care so much about reviews. I'm totally confused as to why people care about review scores.Zeviander
Some feel that reviews may give a sign on how good or bad a movie may be.
#-43 Posted by sammyjenkis898 (28307 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.

Aljosa23
Harsh with your words lately.
#-42 Posted by thedarklinglord (662 posts) -
The comparisons to The Phantom Menace are funny, because I almost wonder if Peter Jackson hasn't gone a little George Lucas, psychologically speaking. He made an assload of money for everyone involved with The Lord of the Rings, which earned him enough credit (and power) that I think people are willing to defer to his judgment and let him run a little amok, rather than maybe reining him in and giving him honest feedback in the form of criticism. Then we get King Kong and, despite largely positive reviews, I think a lot of people pretty harshly dumped all over that movie. Which might have made him a little bitter and angry. Then he gets dragged back into the Tolkien universe - which he'd originally said he had no interest in returning to, because he didn't want the pressure of trying to match, if not surpass the success of LotR - and he's probably motivated more by money than by love of the project. And, to that end, was his approach one of, "Can we make more money than Avatar? Can we make this a bigger visual spectacle, maybe by using new and potentially interesting tech? Can we beat Cameron?" You know, the way Lucas was grousing about how there's no way they were going to break Titanic's box office... Just some speculation, but it's sad and scary if it's true.
#-41 Posted by Slayer_of_Bugs (123 posts) -
I don't care. I'll pay to see this movie in theaters at least twice just to see the shire on the big screen again with concerning hobbits playing in the background.
#-40 Posted by Baranga (14217 posts) -

Personally, I'm heading back to the Harry Potter movie, which has fantasy and effects plus wittier charm, and some lives scaled to a human dimension.

-----

The pacing of the picture bogs the entire thing down. The actors look deep into each other's eyes time and time again, usually in slow motion, seemingly grinding the film to a halt, as it stretches itself out past the three hour mark... The movie goes in circles and never seems to come to an end

---

Sure, the films technical aspects are vastly elaborate, the characters well cast, and the special effects amazing. So, what else do you expect from a big budget extravaganza like this? How about a story that does not find itself distracted with every step? Or characters that are not puppets of the plot? Is it really too much to ask for a movie to obey the guidelines it sets for itself

---

Too many characters for me to care about - Roeper

These are some 2001 FOTR reviews:P

#-39 Posted by MrGeezer (57079 posts) -
I'm not sure why people care so much about reviews. I'm totally confused as to why people care about review scores.Zeviander
Normally I see why people care, reviews help people to better decide how to spend their money. But it's a little bit different when it's something that people are gonna watch anyway. I'm pretty sure just about everyone in this thread is gonna end up seeing the Hobbit anyway, so it doesn't really matter what kinds of reviews it gets.
#-38 Posted by ShadowMoses900 (17081 posts) -

Fortunately for me I am capable of thinking for myself and forming my own opinions on things. I don't care about movie ratings, they mean next to nothing, Machine Gun Preacher got hated on by the critics, I thought it was a great movie.

#-37 Posted by MrGeezer (57079 posts) -

Fortunately for me I am capable of thinking for myself and forming my own opinions on things. I don't care about movie ratings, they mean next to nothing, Machine Gun Preacher got hated on by the critics, I thought it was a great movie.

ShadowMoses900
You obviously didn't know it was great BEFORE you saw it, so why did you decide to go see it?
#-36 Posted by Aljosa23 (25980 posts) -

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

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.

sammyjenkis898

Harsh with your words lately.

Harsh but certainly true. I love the LoTR trilogy but everything after is just not good.

#-35 Posted by m0zart (11568 posts) -

[QUOTE="sammyjenkis898"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

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.

Aljosa23

Harsh with your words lately.

Harsh but certainly true. I love the LoTR trilogy but everything after is just not good.

You didn't like King Kong?

#-34 Posted by ShadowMoses900 (17081 posts) -

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Fortunately for me I am capable of thinking for myself and forming my own opinions on things. I don't care about movie ratings, they mean next to nothing, Machine Gun Preacher got hated on by the critics, I thought it was a great movie.

MrGeezer

You obviously didn't know it was great BEFORE you saw it, so why did you decide to go see it?

I haven't seen it, I heard about the movie and saw the trailer and was impressed by it. So I will be seeing the film when it's released. LOTR are my favorite movies, at least modern day released movies anyway, I think The Hobbit will be great as well.

As for Machine Gun Preacher, I heard about the movie and saw it on Netflix. Very good, I heard about the bad reviews about it but those reviews were way off the mark. I think they just gave it a low rating because it was somewhat of a religious movie, and a lot of critics have a bias against that.

#-33 Posted by m0zart (11568 posts) -

As for Machine Gun Preacher, I heard about the movie and saw it on Netflix. Very good, I heard about the bad reviews about it but those reviews were way off the mark. I think they just gave it a low rating because it was somewhat of a religious movie, and a lot of critics have a bias against that.ShadowMoses900

Just how religious was it? Was it just a religious backdrop, or more like the Gospel According to Leatherface?

#-32 Posted by sammyjenkis898 (28307 posts) -

[QUOTE="sammyjenkis898"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

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.

Aljosa23

Harsh with your words lately.

Harsh but certainly true. I love the LoTR trilogy but everything after is just not good.

I agree that everything after his LOTR run is, well, not good. But a hack? Hardly. The trilogy alone puts him out of that territory.
#-31 Posted by MrGeezer (57079 posts) -
I think they just gave it a low rating because it was somewhat of a religious movie, and a lot of critics have a bias against that.ShadowMoses900
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/life-of-pi/ As Far as Machine Gun Preacher goes, is that why the reviewers SAID they give it poor reviews? Because, like, reviewers generally don't just plain give a "thumbs down", they'll usually give a bad review and then say why it sucks. You "think" they gave it a low rating because it's somewhat of a religious movie? Is that why they SAID they gave it a low review?
#-30 Posted by ShadowMoses900 (17081 posts) -

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]As for Machine Gun Preacher, I heard about the movie and saw it on Netflix. Very good, I heard about the bad reviews about it but those reviews were way off the mark. I think they just gave it a low rating because it was somewhat of a religious movie, and a lot of critics have a bias against that.m0zart

Just how religious was it? Was it just a religious backdrop, or more like the Gospel According to Leatherface?

The main character is an ex convict of a racist biker gang who goes to church with his wife and get's baptised, he then turns his life around and becomes a preacher. He later goes to Africa to help the children there and he builds an orphanage for the children to stay at, away from the war zone. However the rebels are trying to kill the kids, so the main character starts to shoot back and protect them.

It's a really great movie and it's a true story, his name is Sam Childers, you can learn about him here: Sam Childers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is religious but it's not pushy or anything like that.

#-29 Posted by Blue-Sky (10346 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="megam"] King Kong [QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

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.

jimkabrhel

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.

WHAT?

Have you ever read The Watchmen? It wasn't faithful to the graphic Novel on several key points. They cut out several back stories on main characters, the black ledger and a completely different ending...

The biggest complaint about The Watchmen was that they tried to fit too much into one movie and lost the emotional narrative behind plot points. Had they had broken it up into trilogy (or even 2 movies) they could have been far more faithful to the book.

#-28 Posted by flordeceres (4662 posts) -

on the subject of good jackson movies, braindead is absolutely brilliant and everyone should see it

#-27 Posted by Aljosa23 (25980 posts) -

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

[QUOTE="sammyjenkis898"] Harsh with your words lately.m0zart

Harsh but certainly true. I love the LoTR trilogy but everything after is just not good.

You didn't like King Kong?

Not particularly. It's way too long and I vastly prefer the charm of the 1933 version.

#-26 Posted by dave123321 (34368 posts) -

[QUOTE="m0zart"]

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]Harsh but certainly true. I love the LoTR trilogy but everything after is just not good.

Aljosa23

You didn't like King Kong?

Not particularly. It's way too long and I vastly prefer the charm of the 1933 version.

Charm is for fools
#-25 Posted by DharmaMember77 (2377 posts) -

[QUOTE="m0zart"]

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]Harsh but certainly true. I love the LoTR trilogy but everything after is just not good.

Aljosa23

You didn't like King Kong?

Not particularly. It's way too long and I vastly prefer the charm of the 1933 version.

It has its highlights though such as the amazing cgi and Naomi Watts.

#-24 Posted by hippiesanta (9991 posts) -
I'm not buying sequels/prequel/adaptation kind of review because the movie will not be judge independently
#-23 Posted by m0zart (11568 posts) -

[QUOTE="m0zart"]

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]Harsh but certainly true. I love the LoTR trilogy but everything after is just not good.

Aljosa23

You didn't like King Kong?

Not particularly. It's way too long and I vastly prefer the charm of the 1933 version.

I love the 1933 version, but I definiltely think Jackson's remake is superior in just about every way. I liked that it preserved the mood of the time in its story structure, which is something that was lacking from the 1933 version simply due to the fact that it attempted to be more about escapism for its audience.

#-22 Posted by Baranga (14217 posts) -

King Kong EE has a couple of fantastic additional scenes.

I like bloated epics. That's what makes them epic.

#-21 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -

[QUOTE="sammyjenkis898"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

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.

Aljosa23

Harsh with your words lately.

Harsh but certainly true. I love the LoTR trilogy but everything after is just not good.

Return of the King came out less than a decade ago, by the way.
#-20 Posted by Pffrbt (6596 posts) -

I'm not surprised. The book was one of the most boring things I ever read and barely had a plot, yet it's being stretched out into a trilogy. Movie didn't look good from the trailers anyway.

#-19 Posted by SaintLeonidas (26733 posts) -
Overall consensus so far seems to be meh to bad, with a lot of hate directed towards the 48fps. Honestly, this does not surprise me.
#-18 Posted by Allicrombie (25560 posts) -

As a Tolkien fan, I enjoyed The Hobbit (the book), much more than the LoTR trilogy, it was just more interesting and tightly focused. I was a bit worried how they were going to stretch one short novel into 9 hours of film.

#-17 Posted by TheSacredFlame (324 posts) -

I have a feeling that this movie won't meet the hype, but not to say that it will probably be a solid movie.

#-16 Posted by Primordialous (1313 posts) -

I honestly couldn't give two sh1ts about the reviews, I'm still watching it anyway.

#-15 Posted by sammyjenkis898 (28307 posts) -
Was anyone actually planning on seeing it in soap-opera quality?
#-14 Posted by m0zart (11568 posts) -

As a Tolkien fan, I enjoyed The Hobbit (the book), much more than the LoTR trilogy, it was just more interesting and tightly focused. I was a bit worried how they were going to stretch one short novel into 9 hours of film.Allicrombie

Agreed. LOTR is more epic, but it is also far more cynical. It really ends even on a cynical note. The Hobbit was about going out on an adventure, but in LOTR, I always knew everyone would prefer to be at home.

#-13 Posted by Goyoshi12 (9687 posts) -

[QUOTE="Zeviander"]I'm not sure why people care so much about reviews. I'm totally confused as to why people care about review scores.MrGeezer
Normally I see why people care, reviews help people to better decide how to spend their money. But it's a little bit different when it's something that people are gonna watch anyway. I'm pretty sure just about everyone in this thread is gonna end up seeing the Hobbit anyway, so it doesn't really matter what kinds of reviews it gets.

Hype. If I'm correct The Hobbit is probably one of the most hyped and anticipated movies of 2012 (purely specualtion, I have no data to back this up) so that's why people are worried over reviews because of how they will think of the movie. It's not because it will affect whether a devoted fan to the series will go see a movie but how they may feel once they see the movie due to the reviews.

It's like if you're hyped over a game and it starts to get bad reviews; you're not worried over getting the game you're worried about how the game is.

As for The Hobbit, I'm no LOTR fan (haven't read the books or seen the movie and don't really care about seeing them or not) so this movie doesn't affect how I would probably see the movie but I did kind of figure this movie wouldn't be as big as the LOTR Trilogy. It didn't seem to have that big and epic feeling that the three brought with it and it just seemed rather...lacking. I don't know, I don't know anything about LOTR but that's just my perspective of things here.

#-12 Posted by SaintLeonidas (26733 posts) -
Was anyone actually planning on seeing it in soap-opera quality?sammyjenkis898
Me....for sh*ts and giggles.
#-11 Posted by SaudiFury (8707 posts) -

i haven't seen it, i'm gonna see it.

my initial gut reaction to the scores is a matter of expectations. if they're so high they don't meet your inevitably disappointed. if you don't know what to expect you might be really surprised.

#-10 Posted by MrGeezer (57079 posts) -

Hype. If I'm correct The Hobbit is probably one of the most hyped and anticipated movies of 2012 (purely specualtion, I have no data to back this up) so that's why people are worried over reviews because of how they will think of the movie. It's not because it will affect whether a devoted fan to the series will go see a movie but how they may feel once they see the movie due to the reviews.

It's like if you're hyped over a game and it starts to get bad reviews; you're not worried over getting the game you're worried about how the game is.

As for The Hobbit, I'm no LOTR fan (haven't read the books or seen the movie and don't really care about seeing them or not) so this movie doesn't affect how I would probably see the movie but I did kind of figure this movie wouldn't be as big as the LOTR Trilogy. It didn't seem to have that big and epic feeling that the three brought with it and it just seemed rather...lacking. I don't know, I don't know anything about LOTR but that's just my perspective of things here.

Goyoshi12
Good point, but mediocre reviews could be the best thing that could happen for some people. Lots of times movies will just get exceptional reviews across the board. Then the hype gets built way up, and audiences end up being disappointed when they actually watch the movie. If someone's dead set on seeing the movie regardless, then mediocre reviews might benefit their enjoyment. There's a good chance they could stand to just lower their expectations a couple of notches, and then they'll really end up enjoying the movie rather than end up being disappointed that "it's not as good as everyone says".
#-9 Posted by m0zart (11568 posts) -

Was anyone actually planning on seeing it in soap-opera quality?sammyjenkis898

I have been tempted to wait until all three are released before seeing any of them.

#-8 Posted by Allicrombie (25560 posts) -

[QUOTE="sammyjenkis898"]Was anyone actually planning on seeing it in soap-opera quality?m0zart

I have been tempted to wait until all three are released before seeing any of them.

Considering this as well. It's already kind of a downer that we won't see the Lonely Mountain til 2014 at the earliest.
#-7 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (17535 posts) -

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

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.

Laihendi

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.

If it was only a matter of omission from the books, I probably wouldn't grumble at all. But, PJ took a lot of liberties with the characters and who did what in the books. An example is Arwen showing up near Weathertop instead of Glorfindel and similar rewriting of other characters.

But, the gripes above are minor. For pure entertainment, the LOTR trilogy are still some of my favorites. I have a feeling I'll like The Hobbit trilogy as well. Tolkien took a lot of shortcuts near the end just so he can get Bilbo home and keep the book thin. :lol:

Tolkien mentioned there were "other adventures." I don't mind filler material for those parts. But, based on what he did in LOTR, PJ will probably have a lot of filling throughout the length of the book. No biggie. I'll probably buy the extended editions regardless.

But, for any serious discussion of Tolkien's works though, I wouldn't rely on the movies.

#-6 Posted by Goyoshi12 (9687 posts) -

[QUOTE="Goyoshi12"]

Hype. If I'm correct The Hobbit is probably one of the most hyped and anticipated movies of 2012 (purely specualtion, I have no data to back this up) so that's why people are worried over reviews because of how they will think of the movie. It's not because it will affect whether a devoted fan to the series will go see a movie but how they may feel once they see the movie due to the reviews.

It's like if you're hyped over a game and it starts to get bad reviews; you're not worried over getting the game you're worried about how the game is.

As for The Hobbit, I'm no LOTR fan (haven't read the books or seen the movie and don't really care about seeing them or not) so this movie doesn't affect how I would probably see the movie but I did kind of figure this movie wouldn't be as big as the LOTR Trilogy. It didn't seem to have that big and epic feeling that the three brought with it and it just seemed rather...lacking. I don't know, I don't know anything about LOTR but that's just my perspective of things here.

MrGeezer

Good point, but mediocre reviews could be the best thing that could happen for some people. Lots of times movies will just get exceptional reviews across the board. Then the hype gets built way up, and audiences end up being disappointed when they actually watch the movie. If someone's dead set on seeing the movie regardless, then mediocre reviews might benefit their enjoyment. There's a good chance they could stand to just lower their expectations a couple of notches, and then they'll really end up enjoying the movie rather than end up being disappointed that "it's not as good as everyone says".

That's also a possibility. I just don't believe the hype for any movie (same thing with games, new shows, and new episodes) and go in with the barest of expectations towards the movie; the only thing I'm looking for is if the movie is good, that's it. Even with the least amount of hype towards a movie there still is a chance that the movie can still fail to reach my hype and considering how "low" I put that hype that's really bad for me.

Though this isn't the case with many, what with all the advertising and popularity and other such factors of building up hype; it's hard to be excited for a movie espescially if you have a history with that movie and what it's based on (see the Avengers). Oh well, what you said does happen quite a bit if any form of media (movies, books, games, etc.) start getting some moderate reviews instead of sky high scores most smart people will toggle back their expectations to be a little more moderate. However, what with our world and everything, smart people are somewhat hard to come by.

#-5 Posted by brucewayne69 (2864 posts) -
[QUOTE="m0zart"]

[QUOTE="sammyjenkis898"]Was anyone actually planning on seeing it in soap-opera quality?Allicrombie

I have been tempted to wait until all three are released before seeing any of them.

Considering this as well. It's already kind of a downer that we won't see the Lonely Mountain til 2014 at the earliest.

How is it the earliest? It is the latest, lol. We'll probably see it in the second movie, AKA 2013, as it is called "The Desolation of Smaug". Maybe. But definitely not the EARLIEST. Anyways, the movie will be amazing, LOTR is amazing, if you don't think so then get out of this thread, /thread.
#-4 Posted by Baranga (14217 posts) -

You'll see it in the first movie.

#-3 Posted by MacBoomStick (1822 posts) -

The Dark Knight Rises effect. Just as good as the previous movie, if not better but reviews are lower because of the hype. I think expecting something better than LoTR is stupid. It also seems like some reviewer are rating it low just because of 48 fps.

#-2 Posted by klusps (10385 posts) -

Kind of felt like it was a bit overhyped and being compared to the LOTR trilogy also doesn't help. Hope this is another Star Wars trilogy prequal.

#-1 Posted by Justinps2hero (2187 posts) -
Looks so similar to the LOTRs films, carbon copy trilogy. I'll end up seeing it, but not going to the cinema, sorry Pete, hope you enjoy making them brov.
#0 Posted by -Renegade (8340 posts) -
Trailers look uninspiring to me I mean there isn't anything in them to make me want to go see this movie so the reviews don't surprise me. TLOTR movies were not that good anyway.