The Classic Off-Topic forum is a place where games or platforms discussions are taboo. Here, you can talk about just about anything outside of games, just make sure to stay classy and follow the rules.
Forum Rules:
- Follow the Terms of Use and read the FAQ.
- Keep your discussions friendly and respectful of others.
- Keep the discussions work friendly. More details in the FAQ (For something more laid back go to Off Topic: After Hours
- Game and platform discussions NOT allowed (For that go to the Primary Games Board or System Wars.
- Do NOT post or bump extremely abusive discussions.
- Hate speech not permitted.
The Hobbit Currently Sits At A Rating Of Just 62...
- Dec 4, 2012 6:25 am GMTAlways 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?
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Dec 4, 2012 6:40 am GMTShould have been expected when they casted Colbert
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Dec 4, 2012 6:42 am GMT[QUOTE="Blue-Sky"]
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.
[/QUOTE] I think the frame rate could be a legitimate issue depending how it looks- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Dec 4, 2012 6:49 am GMT
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.- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Dec 4, 2012 6:49 am GMTtenaka2 wrote:
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?
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'.
:It is my opinion that pursuing women who do not have red hair isn’t a good time investment. Eventually you will look at her hair, realize it’s not red, and come to understand that you’ve settled for less. - Jerry "Tycho" Holkins
[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?
[/QUOTE]
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'.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Dec 4, 2012 7:03 am GMT
If Christy Lemire gives this one a negative review as well, she might as well purchase her own body bag at this point.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Dec 4, 2012 7:08 am GMTworlock77 wrote:tenaka2 wrote:
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?
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.
[QUOTE="worlock77"]
[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?
[/QUOTE]
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'.
[/QUOTE]
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.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Dec 4, 2012 7:11 am GMT[QUOTE="TheFallenDemon"]
If Christy Lemire gives this one a negative review as well, she might as well purchase her own body bag at this point.
[/QUOTE] Nah.- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Dec 4, 2012 7:12 am GMTthemajormayor wrote:Well LOTR trilogy sucked so I won't take the reviews too seriously
.
[QUOTE="themajormayor"]Well LOTR trilogy sucked so I won't take the reviews too seriously[/QUOTE]
.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Dec 4, 2012 7:17 am GMTWell the first part of the book is boring.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Dec 4, 2012 7:17 am GMT
It's currently at 71% on RT, wonder if the comments on the neg reviews will be as entertaining as TDKR and The Avengers.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Dec 4, 2012 7:19 am GMT
[QUOTE="TheFallenDemon"]
It's currently at 71% on RT, wonder if the comments on the neg reviews will be as entertaining as TDKR and The Avengers.
[/QUOTE] The comments are disabled, thankfully.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Dec 4, 2012 7:20 am GMT:It is my opinion that pursuing women who do not have red hair isn’t a good time investment. Eventually you will look at her hair, realize it’s not red, and come to understand that you’ve settled for less. - Jerry "Tycho" Holkins
[QUOTE="tenaka2"]However there is no avoiding the obvious drive behind dragging these films out, cash.
[/QUOTE]
Certainly. Of course cash is the whole drive of making these films (or any commercially released film) in the first place.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Dec 4, 2012 7:23 am GMT[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.[/QUOTE] Outside of LotR, has any other film directed by Peter Jackson been anything above average?
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Dec 4, 2012 7:24 am GMT[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.[/QUOTE] Outside of LotR, has any other film directed by Peter Jackson been anything above average? [/QUOTE] Heavenly Creatures.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Dec 4, 2012 7:25 am GMT
Make way for the Queen of the internet!
Boxxy returns- 14/02/13
up yo 71 now in RT- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Dec 4, 2012 7:32 am GMT
[QUOTE="lightleggy"]up yo 71 now in RT[/QUOTE]
with an average rating of 6.6
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Dec 4, 2012 8:03 am GMT
-Tish- wrote:I mean I would never hit a girl, but I'd still choke a biitch.At least you could be pleasantly surprised rather than disappointed..
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Dec 4, 2012 8:44 am GMT
[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Dec 4, 2012 8:49 am GMTBlazerdt47 wrote:themajormayor wrote:Well LOTR trilogy sucked so I won't take the reviews too seriously
.
I love that show.-Tish- wrote:I mean I would never hit a girl, but I'd still choke a biitch.[QUOTE="Blazerdt47"][QUOTE="themajormayor"]Well LOTR trilogy sucked so I won't take the reviews too seriously[/QUOTE]
.
[/QUOTE] I love that show.- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
