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

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey

It's early days yet still, but it's still kind of dissapointing really, especially when compared to the 88, 92 and 94 ratings the Lord of the Rings trilogy got. I'm probably going to go see it regardless, but here's hoping that score rises a bit.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

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

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

cslayer211

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

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

sune_Gem

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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'.

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

[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?

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.

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

TheFallenDemon

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

.

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

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

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.

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

[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

up yo 71 now in RTlightleggy

with an average rating of 6.6

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

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.

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

.

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

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.

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

[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

Don't forget "Meet the Feebles"

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.

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.

[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

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

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

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

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.

[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

Which was by far the best King Kong.