The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

thats what your parents said when you were born.

Dec 29 - 09:28 AM

David Becker

Well that wasn't very nice, though I don't like him much either.

Jan 3 - 03:34 PM

@David you should see the shit he calls other people...

Jan 3 - 09:43 PM

shut da hell up

Jan 5 - 01:17 PM

Django !!!!! yes

Jan 5 - 03:10 PM

yeah, just tell me to shut up, that'll solve all your problems...

Jan 5 - 05:51 PM

no but i get to make fun of you, douche

Jan 6 - 11:46 AM

but it didn't work.

Jan 6 - 06:13 PM

i just did dumbass and in the previous comment, read correctly please

Jan 6 - 06:19 PM

you did dumbass? what did it feel like?

Jan 6 - 07:09 PM

oh amazing, she was beautiful too

Jan 6 - 07:19 PM

don't you mean he?

Jan 6 - 08:57 PM

Alex Esteve

Too much comic relief, a good film for the kids but very disappointing to the majority of Tolkien fans or film buffs in my limited opinion. If u like films like spy kids etc you'll like this but not enough substance for me.

Dec 27 - 10:59 AM

Zsolt Kocsis

If you were a Tolkien fan you would have actually read the hobbit and realised it was much more lighter the the ring trilogy.

Dec 27 - 11:38 AM

Sceth StXellus

With the exception of one chapter, that with Sméagol, The Hobbit is a fairytale. It's intended as a fairtale, it's written as a fairytale, it comes off as a fairytale, there is no mistaking the book for anything other than a fairytale. The Sméagol chapter retains its darkness only because Tolkien considered an experiment - what if I wrote a LOTResque telling of the same legend that inspired this fairytale? Well, he only wrote one chapter, did not finish the project, and stuck it in. Maybe that's why it feels uneven, but it's still, unmistakeably, a fairytale.

Dec 28 - 03:10 AM

Corrine Taylor

The Lord of the Rings was meant to be read and watched as a serious book/movie series with harsh truths and darker messages to the plot. The Hobbit was written and meant to be targeted towards a younger audience, and so all the comic relief isn't meant to be seen as comic relief from a serious movie but rather a more fun and lighthearted film that should be read more as a fantasy than a war film. The majority of Tolkien fans should NOT be disappointed, for it delivered what was to be expected and more.

Dec 29 - 12:48 AM

David Becker

Yes, for sure.
Though it was weird watching Bilbo fall at least a hundred feet in Goblintown and get up with no injuries.
Other than that a wonderful movie!

Jan 3 - 03:36 PM

well, that's how it happened in the book...

Jan 6 - 06:13 PM

Andy Preece

Yeah i thought it was awesome. It probably won't end up as good as Lotr due to the simple fact that the source material isn't as grand in scope, but some of the stuff these asshole critics are saying on here is nothing but contrarian waffle.

Dec 27 - 09:59 AM

Shirley Kahn

To make your comments show me you have not read "The Hobbit" which is a beautiful book. I was bored and dozing in the film and terribly disappointed that the story line got blurred with all the fighting scenes which dominated the film.

Jan 6 - 09:09 PM

This comment has been removed.

Matt Hastings

yeah and isn't it a real crying shame Geordie. I really hope you lose sleep over the fact that The Hobbit went up a point.

Dec 18 - 01:57 PM

Colby Stearns

Sure, it's not as good as the Original Trilogy, but I was satisfied in seeing it, I thought it was good. Martin Freeman and Ian McKellan were great. :)

Dec 16 - 10:02 PM

Grant Welcome

Saw this today and it certainly doesn't live up to the majesty of the original trilogy. If it wasn't for the beauty that makes up Middle Earth I may not of even given this the 70% that I settled for.

Dec 16 - 08:49 PM

I wholeheartedly agree

Dec 17 - 04:28 PM

Caleb Polanco

I personally believe we should all just wait for the last part, and then see what happens

Dec 16 - 07:58 PM

If they're charging for three movies, then we should judge them as three movies.

Dec 16 - 09:12 PM

Leo Monteiro

9 hours of hobbit is 6 hours too many. The Hobbit is a slim, childrens book, its not LOTR in scope and grandeur.

Dec 16 - 04:08 PM

This comment has been removed.

geordie i bet you've gotten people to commit suicide due to your excessive cyber bullying. i hope you're proud of the monster you are.

Dec 16 - 08:18 PM

INFACT NO I HAVE NOT. INFACT YOU PEOPLE ON THIS SITE A LIKE A PACK OF WOLVES GANGING UP ON ME LIKE A BUNCH OF CYBER BULLIES JUST CAUSE I HAVE A FIFFRENT OPINION AND I WAS BEING SERIOUS THE HOBBIT AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY IS NOT A PURE ADAPTATION OF THE BOOK IT IS PETER JACKSON USING THAT BOOK AS AN EXCUSE TO MAKE A 9 HOUR PREQUEL TRILOGY.

Dec 16 - 08:27 PM

what is FIFFRENT? is that another one of those words you make up? IN FACT, the phrase "in fact" is two words. go back to grade school. also george lucas used his original star wars story as an excuse to make a fail prequel trilogy that nobody cares about.

Dec 16 - 08:32 PM

STOP BEING A CYBER BULLY CAUSE I HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION. ALL TRUE TOLIEN PURISTS KNOW THE HOBBIT AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY IS NOT A TRUE ADAPTATION OF THE ORIGINAL HOBBIT BOOK IT IS PETER JACKSONS EXCUSE TO MILK THE FRANCHISE AND MAKE A 9 HOUR PREQUEL TRILOGY.

Dec 16 - 08:36 PM

you literally just repeated yourself. that just shows that you suck at forming good arguments and don't know how to defend yourself. i'm not the one who's cyber bullying; i'm not the one purposely crushing tolkien fans' hopes for the hobbit movie just because it stirs them. if you don't like LOTR&the hobbit, then go somewhere else to hate it, because this forum is obviously not for you.

Dec 16 - 08:51 PM

Matt Hastings

Geordie stop crying like a little baby when someone calls you out on your harsh comments. I don't care if you're a troll but don't cry about how you're the one being cyber bullied the moment someone turns the tables on you.

Dec 18 - 01:59 PM

Ryle Laporte

So let me get this straight, Peter Jackson is making 9 hours out of the Hobbit, roughly 11-12 hours if you count extended content, and you think all this is in effort to... milk the franchise? Do you have any fucking idea what kind of work goes into making 12 hours of fantasy on film? Or are you just completely fucking oblivious? Tolkien makes reference to the Necromancer, he makes reference to Azog, he makes reference to Stone Giants and he makes reference to past battles and Peter Jackson brings ALL of it to life. The battle with Smaug and Erabor, the battle at Moria with Thorin, the battle between stone giants, the important of the Necromancer (Sauron) and his plot. You sir are a babbling fucking idiot and no one here is convinced that you know anything about Tolkien and his masterpiece called Middle Earth. If you did know anything, you would realize that there is a shit load of material in the Hobbit and the Silmarillion to advance this plot even further and although I think two movies would have been enough, I will still go to see all three and buy them afterwards.

Dec 18 - 11:38 AM

Leo Passi

I was thinking about posting an independent comment but then I realized that you've pretty much said what I wanted to, and you're more au fait with Tolkeinology than I am. I should point out that even though I last read the book about 15 years ago and my recollection of the story pretty sketchy I thoroughly enjoyed it. What I'm saying is that you don't have to be overly familiar with the characters and story to like the flick although it should encourage more people like me to go back and read the book. Also wondering if 3 movies will be a bit of a stretch. How far into the book are we at the end of this first installment out of interest?

Jan 6 - 07:40 AM

Nathan Nazg�l Lord

So, what you're saying is, you're not trying to force your crappy opinion(s) down our throats by trolling the entire board? People haven't been throwin' shit (or should I say the contents of your skull) back at you "cause you have a different opinion". If you really hated the film this much you would've left it like that, rather than trolling the people who *do* like it. Hypocritically, you're just tossing rocks at others opinions yourself, so don't get us started on that.

Dec 18 - 11:50 AM

David Becker

Please.... the caps lock key is on the left side of the keyboard, could you push it?

Jan 3 - 03:30 PM

Nah, Tolkien had lots of historical canon with regards to the Hobbit, which we're seeing in this movie. It's fantastic.

Dec 16 - 08:19 PM

Nope sorry fanboy

Dec 17 - 04:40 PM

calling people fanboys is understandable given zachary w.'s excitement and disappointment in the critics, but trying to get another person to refrain from their very own opinion is totally uncalled for. Retardo's opinion is his own. Your opinion can't change his, so stop trying.

Dec 17 - 06:12 PM

Christopher Lee Brenes

He's not trying to change his opinion. He didn't tell him his opinion. He's informing him of his opinion.
By the way, your definition of "cyber bullying" is probably insulting to people who have actually been victims of it.

Dec 18 - 01:50 AM

geordie IS a cyber bully. he should be banned from the internet.

Dec 18 - 08:26 AM

Walken, I realize you're looking for negative attention and that's fine; it's slightly entertaining. But yes, there is a lot of canon in these films that Tolkien wrote about; just saying "no, sorry fanyboy" makes you look a tad foolish if you don't know the facts.

Dec 18 - 12:56 PM

Nick Popravak

Yes it can be happening..this movie was not that good... This is what it felt like to me and I wanted to go like it. Imagine Michael Bay and George Lucas had a bastard love child on the roller coaster set of The Temple of Doom and Ang Lee's Hulk delivered the baby while a pod race was going on in the background and it was set at the speed of Star Trek the Motion Picture during the scene where they first show the Enterprise..yup...thats this movie.

Dec 16 - 10:36 AM

Luke Handler

grats, you're a dumbass

Dec 16 - 07:39 PM

Nick Popravak

Whatever fan boi. How are you liking the taste of Peter Jackson balloon knot. More than likely you think Twilight is High Cinema. The only part of that movie that was decent was the part in Golems cave because it was the only damn part that had ANY real interaction between characters. The rest of it was all fluff and BOOM, CLASH, BANG...

Dec 16 - 08:23 PM

Fobos Dudo

comparing the movie ti twilight and michael bay shows a rather high amount of ignorance. the guy above showed one side of the bias, and you show the other. neither of you can be trusted.

Dec 16 - 09:30 PM

Ryle Laporte

Because the hour intro introducing 15 main characters doesn't have any character interaction right. Hm...

Dec 18 - 11:40 AM

Nathan Nazg�l Lord

Where's the use in calling people you know nothing about "fanboys"? Surely you've got your own movie, or kind of movie, you're that interested in. The only reason you're calling others fanboys (when it comes to The Hobbit) is that you simply hate the film but cannot accept the fact that others actually like it. Yes, there are people who can't accept people who hate on it either, but that's because everyone feels the need to bash each other on their thoughts on this film, whichever side they're coming from.

Dec 18 - 11:53 AM

Nick Popravak

Actually the Fanboi comment was due to his "grats, you're a dumbass" which is the normal response of a fanboy to someone who gives their honest opinion which differs from theirs. What I posted in my initial comment was truly how I felt about the movie. There was very little character interaction in that first hour. There were flash backs that were supposed to help you understand who one of the characters was, but none that really helped you have a deeper understanding of the character than, he's the angry one, he's the fat one, he's the dumb one. I felt no vested interest in any of the characters, sans Golem and Bilbo but that didn't happen until far later on in the movie and only lasted for a brief moment. The scenes in the Goblin kingdom reminded me of the roller coaster race in the Temple of Doom, and the big loud noise battles with up close shots so you couldn't see what was going on reminded me a Michael Bay films. Folks don't seem to understand, I really wanted to like this movie. I really did. I like all kinds of flicks, some popular and some not. For example...I loved Hudson Hawk, which didn't do well, at the same time I loved Saving Private Ryan which did amazingly well. What I like is movies with characters I can identify with or empathize with. This means directors need to put a little more emphasis on getting to know the characters and less on loud noises and inane banter. Yes the first hour of the movie wss probably meant to let you get to know the dwarves, bilbo and gandolf. For me it failed because after that hour the only thing more I could tell you was that the Dwarf in Charge (DIC) was really angry at the white goblin and smaug. There were a mess of other dwarves there that I knew nothing about. Hell the names aren't even that important but outside of a few cliche personality types I knew nothing of the company.

Dec 18 - 12:45 PM

This comment has been removed.

#1 hobbit's do not exist. how can he have sexual intercourse one with?
#2 You probably haven't even seen the movie so STFU
#3 Comparing that shit clones wars to tolkien's legendarium? man u got some nerve....

Dec 16 - 08:02 AM

star wars the clone wars is a stupid little tv show/movie for 4 year old boys. the hobbit is a better achievement than anything you've ever done in your life.

Dec 16 - 08:16 AM

Oh noes he didn't make a cash grab movie? OMFG

Dec 16 - 04:10 PM

Fobos Dudo

while it is incomparable to tolkien, the clone wars is pretty entertaining. better by a hundred than the prequel movies, albeit that is not a hard feat i would admit.

Dec 16 - 09:32 PM

Alexander Loucks

You sir, are an idiot and a troll. Are you perchance related to Bill, Bert, and Tom?

Dec 16 - 11:05 AM

Were you the one that threatened Rex Reed's life so we can't comment on individual reviews any more?

Yeah I bet it was you.

Dec 15 - 06:12 PM

Luke Handler

Christopher Walken = horrible actor please leave little one.

Dec 16 - 07:39 PM

robert de niro > christopher walken

Dec 16 - 08:33 PM

They're both awesome. Christopher Walken isn't awesom because he's a better or worse actor he's awesome because his maneurisms and style are so unusual.

Dec 17 - 10:49 PM

congratulations, you and Geordie Newlands (or whatever the fuck his name is) are the laughing stocks of Rt! I hope you're proud

Dec 15 - 11:44 AM

This comment has been removed.

nice

Dec 15 - 04:19 PM

Comment exposing you as a fanboy? And to think on the Red Dawn forums you were decent!

Dec 15 - 09:37 PM

fanboy and proud.

Dec 15 - 09:40 PM

Shoot you both and Geordie

Dec 15 - 10:24 PM

Jesse Compton

dumbest thread ever made.

Dec 15 - 11:42 AM

This comment has been removed.

Leo Phillips

Geordie, why? Sorry, that's a rhetorical question; I forgot some people are just douchebags..

Dec 15 - 01:21 AM

Nathan Fisher

Let's also admit that you go to Comicon and dress up like Batman because he's your superhero. You've also not been laid, of that I'm very sure of.

Dec 15 - 07:42 AM

This comment has been removed.

seriously, i don't see why you bother letting him get to you.

Dec 15 - 12:53 PM

Alex Maverick

I think Geordie is a Star Wars fanboy who dresses up like Anakin and fingers a cardboard cut out of Natalie Portman.

Dec 15 - 07:40 PM

This comment has been removed.

I AM A SITH LORD YOU FUCKING BITCH ILL CUT YOU IN HALF WITH MY RED LIGHTSABER.

Dec 16 - 07:41 AM

star wars fanboy alert ^

Dec 16 - 08:03 AM

GTFO

Dec 15 - 09:40 PM

Bear Toffoli

I suddenly feel the need to enter a fray a care nothing about. First I saw the movie felt was going slow. I also felt it drifted every so slightly into too much potty humor between the dwarves and the trolls. I don't know if the dwarves as presented in the books are more rambunctious and "dirty" but Gimli never felt like comedic sidekick potty humor. All the same despite the slow beginning by the end of the movie I wanted it to keep going. So yeah I kinda liked it a lot actually. And that final battle on the cliff and trees gave my vertigo a good test.

Second when it comes to these kinds of epics I am a costume/set/prop design junkie, same with theater. And I LOVED the stuff in this film, ESPECIALLY The Dwarven city in the intro. The design team is just amazing.

Anyway I've read a lot in this thread and the comments bashing critics seem to ignore the fact that MANY critics have read the books and so have the same information you have. And HELLO they are movie critics. Their job is review the movie not to review the book or how the book was translated to the movie. Or to review all the pre and post-production gossip and stories about why or why the movie wasn't made a certain way. I haven't read the books, I own no allegiance to the fandom. But I will say all The Middle Earth films I have found more exciting, better acted, and more complex thematically then any of the Star Wars franchise. And I LOVE ESTB, I grew up on Star Wars. But Peter Jackson is just a better filmmaker.

All the same critics review movies and most critics I read review movies based on the qualities that make an overall movie good to them. Whether it is a superhero story or a fantasy story or a thriller or courtroom drama, their are certain things that make a movie good, same with music, so any outside related stuff (i.e. books, comics, etc.) are irrelevant to film criticism even though they may be imperative to fans (i.e. Inspector Gadget, Scooby Doo, TMNT, Twilight).

And by the by the critics HATED The Twilight books and the fans yelled at them about it just like they are here. And yet how many Middle Earth fans would say those movies are great. And really making any comments about a movie -ahem- kinda sorta makes you a film critic. Maybe not a professional paid one but still a critique is a critique.

Lastly as my own bit of trolling. I would like to say LOTR did in 3 books what took Harry Potter 7.

Dec 14 - 04:55 PM

Starbaby Miniverse

Actually, there is NO potty humor in the books. Lol Hardly! The Hobbit thankfully has a lot of very clever, intelligent humor; Tolkien was witty enough that he didn't need to resort to low-brow stuff. No belching, slobbery dwarves either. They were stubborn to their own detriment sometimes, but they were never crude or sloppy. Too bad they are portrayed that way in this film.

Dec 14 - 07:58 PM

Todd Garry

Holy shit I know I have seen you posting all over this site (pathetic), but this post is probably the funniest thing I have ever seen.LOL. I love how all the fanboys post this stuff then yell satire when people call them out.

Dec 14 - 04:51 PM

Glad to see you posting again when the need to talk down to people arises. "LOL"

Dec 14 - 04:53 PM

By the way, lurking on every thread is just as bad.

Dec 14 - 04:55 PM

Todd Garry

or two....

Dec 14 - 07:54 PM

This comment has been removed.

Wrong you are the worst kind of Fanboy, the one in denial

Dec 15 - 12:09 AM

Micah Lefevre

MIB3 is currently 70%, 4 points above the Hobbit.
Critics are a joke, this is evidence, who needs em.

Dec 14 - 04:37 PM

yeah, and the twilight saga: breaking dawn - part 2 only got 47% when the audience rated it 78%!!! clearly the audience knows more than the critics. this is evidence the the critics wouldn't understand the awesomeness of twilight even if it came up and bit them in the neck!

bd-p2: 47% critics/78% audience
th-p2: 66% critics/815 audience
clearly their quality is almost identical based on the audience.

Dec 14 - 04:51 PM

Michael Hirakida

Critics Will Be Critics And Audiences Will Make Them Suffer.

Dec 14 - 04:15 PM

"their punishment must be more severe."

Dec 14 - 04:48 PM

This comment has been removed.

deshi deshi basara basara

Dec 15 - 12:49 AM

Gayest statement from a fanboy ever, stick to felching santorum from your dad

Dec 15 - 12:51 AM

M Batman

Yeah I'm glad I saw the low review cause it lowered my expectations. The film totally blew me away it was amazing and beautiful however a little nerdy at times and long winded. Perhaps the people dressed as bilbo and Gandalf humming the elf song behind me didn't help either. I could here their legs vibrating during the fight scenes. I know a couple of them lost their virginity to that cinema seat last night.

Dec 14 - 02:18 PM

Steven Howell

Movie critics are a joke. The ones rating it low aren't interested in fantasy-themed movies. If I went and rated a sports movie, I would be giving it a low rating due to the fact that I absolutely despise sports. The overall percentage should be based from the audience, not critics.

Dec 14 - 02:07 PM

This comment has been removed.

Dylan P

Rocky 4 and 5 sucked SO much but the first three were good.

Dec 14 - 09:09 PM

A lot of them gave favorable reviews to LoTR. Explain that.

Dec 14 - 02:36 PM

welp, it's 65% now... :/

Dec 14 - 01:42 PM

Lower than Attack of the Clones. OH SNAP!

Dec 14 - 01:43 PM

aha. yeah, exactly. although, in reality, i doubt it's worse quality.

Dec 14 - 02:31 PM

This comment has been removed.

aha. from what i hear, this movie is doing really well with fans. my friend loved it. i'm sure you'll enjoy it.

Dec 14 - 02:31 PM

Nick Miller

It sounds like Jackson, for the most part, stuck pretty closely to the story, and was very (if not over) thorough in depicting the story onscreen. This may piss off Joe Filmcritic, but as the Hobbit is one of my favorite books, I'm not sure I have a problem with this.

Dec 14 - 11:55 AM

Ahmed Thamer

fucking critics>>> if i caught any one of you watching the film again, ill kick your asses

Dec 14 - 08:13 AM

Giorgos Stergiopoulos

Guys why do you even care about what a critic says? Go watch the movie for yourself, not to see if the critics are right. Its the best movie i ve seen since LotR, and i am objective ofcourse since i am a fan. Seriously , dont listen to the critics, go and enjoy the movie

Dec 14 - 04:28 AM

"and i am objective of course since i am a fan"

what the fuck does that mean?

Dec 14 - 01:31 PM

Dylan P

You are SO right

Dec 14 - 09:10 PM

Alex Maverick

I would just like to say congratulations to Zachary Wisz for making a thread that has over 400 responses. I think that it's an unnecessary thread, but it did spark a lot of conversation.

Dec 13 - 07:56 PM

This comment has been removed.

Sorry your Boner died

Dec 14 - 12:34 AM

hahaha. what?

Dec 14 - 01:31 PM

What? he gave me a HUGE boner is Seven Psychopaths!

Dec 14 - 01:47 PM

wow, i somehow didn't read his name... XD

Dec 14 - 02:31 PM

it's funny that everyone argues that it's supposed to be distinct and different from lotr, yet they've added characters from lotr that weren't originally in the hobbit and they've added all those story elements featured in the lotr books to flesh out this movie so it can reach three 2.5-3 hour long movies.

why aren't people pointing that out?

Dec 13 - 03:12 PM

This comment has been removed.

I HAVE MET JENNIFER LAWRENCE AND OTHER FAMOUS PEOPLE NOT MANY THO. I COULD STARE INTO JENS EYES ALL YEAR.

Dec 13 - 07:20 PM

Luke Handler

Jennifer Lawrence = no experience = overrated = horrible.

Dec 16 - 07:41 PM

Serena Celestine

And by that statement, Geordie, I'm assuming you mean you wank over her.

Dec 18 - 02:02 AM

@Serena Bish-Good one!

Dec 18 - 03:37 PM

GTFO

Dec 18 - 03:37 PM

@Luke Handler- Jennifer Lawrence is horrible you retard, you're just as stupid as Geordie

Dec 19 - 04:39 PM

s long

its 2hr 30 min excluding credits (no worse than DK Rises-which had a lot more boring bits in it-good film though) the few cameos (Galadriel, Saruman) only last 5 mins. the other material added takes about 10 more mins up so that leaves 2hr 15mins of Hobbit. Its diff from LOTR because the quest is less serious (Rings was about saving the world after all)the film is similar because of the style in which its made-and those added bits will pay off in the next movie when Gandalf disappears to deal with the Necromancer (with the help of the White Council-Galadiel, Saruman etc)Until ppl have sen it they cannot really comment as its all guess work and going by others opinions-were as ppl should see it and judge for themselves.

Dec 14 - 07:28 AM

So why add in the LOTR stuff? And more importantly, why make three movies?

Just because something is "part of the larger" story doesn't mean it needs to be in the movie.

Dec 14 - 07:43 AM

Charles Borner

Honestly, as a fan of some films with a novelized canon, it's actually NICE to have someone be "completist" about the material (in The Hobbit, pulling things from the LOTR appendices and other ancillary works) and showing it in the wider context of Middle Earth, rather than the simpler story of JUST The Hobbit. Many such films tend to excise or gloss over significant portions of a more complex narrative tapestry in order to narrow the focus down to "the main story".

Otherwise you have Gandalf disappearing for half the story. And it's addressed in "talking head" fashion later on. Which sucks in a visual medium and would likely have been cut.

Or, if it were addressed visually, would have been out of place without the foundation of these supporting scenes.

The Hobbit could have been filmed as a 3 hour single movie. But it would have been incredibly rushed. And there would have been all these little dangling plot threads there are in the book.

It PROBABLY could have been filmed more completely in two movies. But I'm betting that doing so would have chopped the film in half in the middle of something, and likely would have made the two films somewhat lopsided (either front-loaded or back-loaded).

Dec 14 - 08:36 AM

perhaps jackson is a perfectionist, akin to cameron. i feel like it was difficult for him to not encompass all the story elements in the movie, and that cutting stuff out was very hard for him. sometimes though, you have to shed things, and take away details, so that the movie as a whole is better. you don't always need such fine details.

Dec 14 - 01:41 PM

what is your point is saying the run time? i put 2.5-3 hours for the three movies.

my POINT is people say you can't compare this to lotr because it's different and distinct (mostly to go against negative reviews, even though positive reviews make the same comparisons), yet the same people then enjoy the fact that bits from lotr have been added when they didn't need to be.

which is it?

Dec 14 - 01:38 PM

Jeremy Oborn

They could have gone to two extremes--completely mimic LOTR or create an entirely new version of middle-earth. I think they found the right balance of making it unique yet familiar. The Hobbit is a less serious story--Tolkien wrote it that way--and the movie reflects that. But we also feel like we're still in the same Middle-Earth with the same characters and backstory.

Dec 14 - 01:58 PM

i'm not talking about the choices jackson made, i'm talking about the weak arguments the fans are making in defence of it not being the same as lotr, when really, a lot of elements seem to be borrowed and even added that weren't in the books to make it connect more to lotr.

Dec 14 - 02:33 PM

Jeremy Oborn

I'm talking about the choices jackson made and the arguments the fans are making being related. His choices are what made the movie good or bad right? Fans are arguing that it's good.
You're right--a lot of the elements weren't in the book, but from the Silmarillion or the appendices. They're being pretty faithful to what Tolkien wrote.

Dec 14 - 03:55 PM

you and i aren't even talking about the same thing.

my point is he added stuff that wasn't in the hobbit book into the hobbit movie, to expand upon it. that included some elements from lotr. now, people seem to be bashing critics because they were making comparisons to lotr, saying it's distinct and different, yet elements from lotr have been added into the movie to make it more connected to lotr.

logical fallacies of the fans. that's what i'm talking about.

Dec 14 - 04:33 PM

Jeremy Oborn

I'm not sure you understand what you're arguing.

Yeah it has elements from lotr. That doesn't mean the fans aren't making a valid point when they say that it shouldn't be compared to lotr. It's a different style and a different mood and if you expect it to be like lotr you're gonna be disappointed. The fact that it contains characters and back stories from lotr doesn't change that. That's what fans are saying. I see no logical fallacies.

Dec 14 - 07:02 PM

R Prescott

Saw it today. It is great - really great. Ignore the critics, I think they watched a different film to the one I saw.

Dec 13 - 10:53 AM

Yea, they went and saw Playing for Keeps and have mistaken it for The Hobbit. Yea. Sure. You tell yourself that.

Dec 14 - 01:40 PM

the old bait-and-switch!

Dec 14 - 02:33 PM

This comment has been removed.

dude your fucking crazy! take a chill pill negro!

Dec 13 - 02:56 PM

Judging by your posts, you are no where near 26 years of age.

Dec 13 - 07:44 PM

oh shit, he's actually getting flagged for spam now.

Dec 14 - 02:34 PM

Dylan David

Lets not pass judgement. For all we know, it could be this generations The Phantom Menace.

Dec 12 - 09:14 PM

This comment has been removed.

However, splitting the movie into three parts and adding characters from LOTR that are not part of The Hobbit smacks of real cynicism.

Dec 12 - 10:01 PM

How do you know?

Dec 12 - 10:16 PM

Dec 13 - 03:11 PM

Apoorv Burke

Times are changing...

Dec 12 - 08:37 PM

This comment has been removed.

Even though Im not too excited about the Hobbit, im sure it is better then the Hunger Games. That was a very poorly directed movie

Dec 12 - 08:41 PM

screw you hunger games had my woman jennifer lawrence in it. besides the sequels will gross more than the entire hobbit trilogy combined. FACT

Dec 12 - 08:43 PM

what does JL being in a movie have to do with its success? Obviously she needs a competant director to get an ok performance out of her..I think scarlett johanson is sexy but she is a lousy actress still

Dec 12 - 10:08 PM

i thought pedophilia was only if the people were underage. jennifer lawrence being 22 and him being 45 (i don't think he's 45) wouldn't be pedophilia.

Dec 13 - 02:49 PM

jennifer lawrence is a great actress how dare you so is scarlett johansson she is number 2 on my list of 100 woman id like to pork. (throw momma off a train refernce)

Dec 12 - 11:36 PM

Pat ChalupaBatman

Fanboys ruin everything

Dec 12 - 01:17 PM

boys ruin every fanthing and fans boy thingruin every

Dec 12 - 02:02 PM

Marco Chaudry

Are speaking that jibberish english from Cloud Atlas? Jesus man XD

Dec 12 - 06:34 PM

i haven't seen that movie yet. :P

Dec 13 - 02:49 PM

tolkein purists who are dismissing critics because they "dont know what they are doing" how many have you have made movies before? what makes you more credible then a film critic? you have probably never worked on a film set in your life.

Dec 12 - 12:21 AM

This comment has been removed.

I can send you a link to my demo reel? Is that enough proof? Writing screenplays and "filming them" can mean writing a 5 minute home movie and shooting it with a cell phone..what does the budget look like?

Dec 12 - 05:59 PM

LMAO dont try credentials with me.I got you..once again I havnt seen the hobbit..I said what one of my professor said who writes for Rotten Tomatoes

Dec 12 - 06:08 PM

have a good night man

Dec 12 - 06:12 PM

Ah. Film student snobbery at it's finest.

Dec 12 - 02:17 PM

I figured it would be around 70..I know fans of the book wont admit this but normal people and film critics and film makers like myself note that this movie is literally 3 hours of walking and talking and eating..I haven't seen it but one of my professors who is a critic pretty much said what I stated above. It is fair to list 48fps as a gripe because peter jackson has been trying to shove that down peoples throats along with 3d

Dec 11 - 11:14 PM

This comment has been removed.

Im talking about the hobbit. I liked the first and second lord of the rings. what do you mean more oscars than you? im 20 years old..i can tell you are a tolkein purist because you have commented on about every post on here. you are disqualified from contributing any credible analysis to the movie..good day

Dec 11 - 11:56 PM

by 'literally', do you literally mean 'literally'?

Dec 12 - 02:18 PM

Steve Burgess

The problem is, like the actual books, this movie should have came out before LOTR. Then we would have loved it and the LOTR movies would have just blown us away!

Dec 11 - 07:22 PM

This comment has been removed.

Zach Idiculla

That other Zachary ... -_-

Dec 11 - 07:54 PM

And also, Christmas is coming and you all better on Santa's nice list this year.

Dec 10 - 05:59 PM

What the hell, Carrick?

Dec 10 - 07:48 PM

i'm always on his nice list. he brings me cocaine.

Dec 10 - 08:03 PM

Zach Idiculla

Not coal?

Dec 11 - 07:55 PM

that's when i'm naughty. :(

Dec 12 - 12:50 AM

Critics better stop complaining, keep their mouths shut and love the Hobbit. You critics hear me, or all Hell's going to break loose on all of you. Me and my mother had been looking forward to see this film. So hear me!

Dec 10 - 05:56 PM

i am convinced you're either trolling or an idiot.

Dec 10 - 07:47 PM

you don't see the critics going around saying you must hate the movie, keeps your mouths shut, 'or else!'

Dec 10 - 07:48 PM

You dastardly critics! Why I oughta'...

Dec 10 - 07:50 PM

i can just picture him shaking his fist at the computer monitor.

Dec 10 - 08:04 PM

I can see him making shitty Youtube rants about it.

Dec 10 - 08:08 PM

i'd watch them if they were short. :P

Dec 10 - 10:57 PM

This comment has been removed.

i've been here every day and i'm not even anticipating this movie that much. i enjoy these forums, though. i may just go watch the movie now. :P

Dec 10 - 10:56 PM

Hobbit Forum is best forum.

Dec 10 - 10:57 PM

well, it's the first 'true' forum they've had since the change. at first i was thinking, 'well, this blows. no one's saying anything anymore!'

i am still displeased with how difficult it is to actually get to these forums. i'd figure they'd be more prominently featured, but instead they're at the bottom of the page under all the reviews.

Dec 10 - 11:09 PM

It's a work in progress.

Dec 10 - 11:11 PM

don't defend them! they're start getting complacent! D:

Dec 10 - 11:26 PM

Marissa Evans

Do NOT take it to heart. Critics will be critics; it's their job. Most of them are only familar with LotR movies (thus compare it to that), and some may have not even liked the LotR trilogy. I've read the Hobbit and I saw the film last week. It's SO true to the original story, admirably so. The critics who don't highly regard it, I've noticed, are just people who are comparing it to LotR, which it should not be in the slightest. Believe me, there's nothing to worry about, if you know what the story is like. :) In fact, I liked it more than I did 'Fellowship of the Ring'!

For that matter, I'm more than certain the sequels will receive more praise, as that's where the novel shifts in tone to match that of LotR more. So okay, even if you do wish this was more like LotR (which Peter Jackson went out of his way to try and integrate - very nice of him), you can look forward to that in the sequels. ;)

Dec 9 - 09:05 PM

just one point: it seems that the overwhelming majority of critics liked lotr, so i feel like they were probably anticipating this just the same as the fans were.

Dec 10 - 05:55 AM

you know, i understand this movie site is mostly dedicated to movie critics and ratings, but honestly, if you (a general 'you') want to see the movie badly, go see if and judge it yourself. these reviews might persuade those on the fence, but if the people around them (general movie-going audience) likes it, they'll probably be persuaded by their friends and may go and end up enjoying the movie.

Dec 9 - 02:40 PM

This comment has been removed.

no problem, zach! :)

Dec 9 - 03:05 PM

Eric Snider

Congratulations, Zachary Wisz (and others)! You inspired an article: http://www.pajiba.com/think_pieces/dont-listen-to-the-movie-critics-who-say-negative-things-about-the-hobbit.php

Dec 9 - 01:27 PM

now that's fucking hilarious. in fact, it's almost on level with 'poe', as i assume some people will actually be fooled into thinking this is real and agree with the writer's sentiment.

Dec 9 - 01:46 PM

If you look at the comments, people are!

Dec 9 - 01:56 PM

i found a few. this article, while a bit lengthy, was great. :)

Dec 10 - 04:26 PM

Fucking beautiful.

Dec 9 - 01:54 PM

Carlos Arboleda

This has to be the most pathetic post I've ever read on RT

Dec 9 - 07:27 AM

there are far more pathetic, but that doesn't help this posts case.

Dec 9 - 01:21 PM

This comment has been removed.

'this is pathetic, but there are things more pathetic, so this is okay'
well, can't argue with that. you won me over.

Dec 9 - 01:49 PM

Andrew Barnes

I think that in order to really appreciate this movie you should have an understanding or at least have read 'The Hobbit' once over. As has already been stated, this movie will be judged and compared to Lord of the Rings, simply because people can't understand the difference in writing between 'The Hobbit' and 'LOTR'.

One of my friends summed it up like this; The Hobbit is a story, while Lord of the Rings is more of an essay/chore. By that he means Lord of the Rings was written as Tolkien would talk, like a narrative, whereas The Hobbit is written different, like most stories.

But as has been stated more times than i care to count, everyone has different opinions and you can only deciede for yourself whether you like a movie or not :).

Dec 8 - 10:16 PM

You know what sucks, Zach? I read that a lot of Howard Shore's work for the Hobbit is rehashed themes from LOTR!

Dec 8 - 12:25 PM

You can actually listen to the whole thing for free and decide for yourself. It's on the Rolling Stone website somewhere.

Dec 8 - 12:30 PM

I'll check that out. Thanks Bill. I always thought you were a level headed guy.

Dec 8 - 12:32 PM

You're probably the only one who thinks that! ;)

Dec 8 - 01:24 PM

nah, i do too. just for you, i hope you enjoy the movie as much as you've hoped. :)

Dec 9 - 02:05 PM

Here is the link to the soundtrack if anyone else is interested: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-soundtrack-honors-the-dwarves-premiere-20121130

Dec 8 - 12:37 PM

I do not mind this, since The Star Wars was vary similar, music wise.

Dec 8 - 12:45 PM

Yea, but the themes in LOTR should be separate, since The Hobbit is so different. Besides, I'm listening to it now, and I disagree with the article I read. I can see using the Shire theme again, but otherwise I'm not really hearing old material.

Dec 8 - 12:50 PM

There is one overlapping theme with LOTR that I could hear, but other than this, it is original.

Dec 8 - 12:53 PM

Joel Miller

Why does that suck? He uses the same themes for the same places, characters and objects. He uses the same Shire theme, the same Rivendell theme, the same Galadriel theme, the same Gollum theme, the same One Ring theme and so on. It would be confusing if he changed the themes used for these characters, places and things.

Dec 12 - 05:06 PM

Jamie Evans

This movie was doomed from the start with critics. Too much anticipation and hype for it to succeed. It is compared to LOTR which is not fair since it is a totally different story. It is a children's book and is much simpler than LOTR. It will not be judged on its own merit ever.

Dec 8 - 12:12 PM

No coming from holland, but i get the point about the reviews of movies, tanks david tanny

Dec 7 - 03:23 PM

No problem.

Dec 7 - 03:24 PM

but don't judge the time A GOOD MOVIE IS Time Less.
by the way, why they are enable score meter when the movie isn't out.. makes no sence at all... just review a movie on a trailer is dumb no way u can do it corretly, to the most here wait til 14 december

Dec 7 - 02:46 PM

Critics get advance screenings.

Dec 7 - 02:50 PM

This comment has been removed.

No, Sebastiaan. They see the whole movie.

Dec 7 - 03:00 PM

This comment has been removed.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you just said.

Dec 7 - 03:12 PM

You mean the crits other images to see the movie? still not possible to judge, because you get some images tezien it is still difficult to assess good story lineis the same as a trailer, it's just short of the movie properly assesslike the movie: Inceptionthis movie is good because you're in it, until you've seen the whole film then you get it.So I think this is so wrong information about a movie that is not out yet, so a movie can be seen less just because handful of people get to see more.
that's my opinion

Dec 7 - 03:13 PM

Okay...Sebastiaan, I wanna help you understand. I really do. But what do this mean: "You mean crits other images to see the movie?". Clear that up, and I could probably help you out.

Dec 7 - 03:16 PM

Tom Ross

Yer an idiot Sebastiaan...

Dec 7 - 05:31 PM

then I get it, sorry for the language, am not from english speaking country as you might see

Dec 7 - 03:19 PM

Naw, it's alright Sebastiaan. I understand. In summary, critics, as part of their profession, get special critic screenings of most films. That means, that they get to see movies before everyone else does. Does that make sense?

Dec 7 - 03:22 PM

Cheriss Spencer

the bad reviews generally seem to say it takes a long time to get going/slow. Well guess what... that's how the book feels! this means PJ did an excellent job; if you like the book you will like the movie. So many people I know tried to read the hobbit but didn't get past the first chunk of the book because it was "slow and boring"... so if the movie is slow and boring at times, then it's true to the book. I absolutely loved the book. so I'm not worried.

Dec 7 - 12:52 PM

Carlo D'Anna

I felt the same way about the book as the average review The Hobbit is getting.I read this story after the magnificent trilogy, and it was very entertaining, but not in the same scope as the later books.

Dec 7 - 10:04 AM

Paul Barrett

That's because it was written for children (or, as they call it now, Young Adults) and so has a much lighter tone than LOTR. It was meant to be a simple adventure, not an epic journey. Although if your read LOTR first I can see why you would expect the same from The Hobbit. The movie (yes, I've seen it) follows the same tone as the previous movies, so if you liked the previous films, you might like this one.

Dec 10 - 07:08 PM

I agree with you Mr. Wisz. Critics don't know whats good or bad until they literally see the film.

Dec 7 - 08:54 AM

They have "literally" seen the film!

Dec 7 - 10:05 AM

i disagree with you mr. mccarthy. you don't know what's good or bad until you literally see the film.

Dec 7 - 08:58 PM

s long

Well Empire onlines 4/5 review from days ago still isn't on RT and 2 of the reviews which score 3/5 (60%) and 2.5/4 (63%)both get rotten from RT so maybe RT want This film to score low to get people talking. Metecritics traffic light system seems better but they post less reviews for some reason- at the moment they have 3 positive and 4 middle reviews with no negatives. Alot of the 8 'rotten' reviews seem to say as much good as they do bad so are boardline, though RT seems to be going with 'the glass half empty' attitude when deciding if its fresh or rotten. My tickets are booked and being mad for all things Tolkien I cannot wait.

Dec 7 - 08:25 AM

Hey, s long, the critics decide if a review is fresh or rotten, not RT.

Dec 7 - 10:18 AM

steve long

thanks for info, am new to this, well they are the 'glass half empty' ones then.hopefullt all my other points were correct

Dec 7 - 12:05 PM

Leon Barbero

The only fact that can be translated from all the critics, goods and bads, are: The film is too long, especially in its first act.

The necessicity of Jackson in making 3-hours movies is a defect for him, if he didnt needed 3-hours he shoudnt make it this long just to please the fans, that are expecting a 3-hours movie!

Dec 7 - 06:33 AM

Carlo D'Anna

Exactly! You hit the nail on the head.

Dec 7 - 10:04 AM

so, from reading the different forums on here, the people who support this movie and want it to be good keep saying the only complaints the critics have are:

1) too long/too boring
2) for kids
3) 48 fps

then they say these aren't fair criticisms. i agree that saying the 48 fps thing is rather moot. you have the choice to see it in 24 fps if you want (same with 2D/3D).

but, it's completely fair game to not like a movie because it felt overly long and was too boring. heck, i'm sure if it was a long movie but had enough material for it's runtime, you know, was engaging and didn't drag down in parts, then they wouldn't be complaining about it. it's not that it's long, it's that the material doesn't justify the length and they should have made an edit that was shorter.
it's also fair game if they think the slapstick humour and silliness got in the way. that's something i noticed in the trailer that annoyed me. if it annoyed the critics and turned them off, then it's fair to say that.
there isn't a comspiracy. the critics didn't gang up on the movie. i am sure they genuinely wanted to like this movie and felt disappointed that it wasn't that good.

Dec 7 - 06:22 AM

Wyndham Whynot

But if you read the Hobbit, there is a fair bit of humor in the books, which is generally not in LOTR

Dec 10 - 06:51 AM

if they think it's annoying and grating, then it doesn't matter if it's in the book or not, they're not going to like it or enjoy it and will give it a lesser score/worse review.

Dec 10 - 04:29 PM

Tallulah Robinson

Seems to me like unless you completely adore Tokien's brand of fantasy and Jackson's brand of cinematising it, you're prolly gonna be a bit bored.

That's what most of them seem to be saying...it's very draggy, which makes sense to me, considering an average-sized book is being spread over THREE movies. Even taking into account the scope of the world to be translated into a film, it's a bloody big ask to make it all still interesting every second =/

Dec 7 - 02:32 AM

Ricky Mainville

Do you dream of blowing a hobbit Zach?

Dec 6 - 11:27 PM

It's a pity Bilbo didn't kill him when he had the chance...

Dec 7 - 10:44 AM

Zach Hare

It was pity that stayed Bilbo's hand...

Dec 11 - 02:38 AM

Quanah Blaine

It's Middle Earth. I'll take whatever "pace" they throw at me. In fact, I'd watch joyfully 3 hours of Bilbo sipping tea pouring over old maps as much as a battle. Makes no difference to me. I love this world captured on film and wish to enjoy every minute of it.

Dec 6 - 11:23 PM

Dan Ibeling

Agreed

Dec 8 - 11:21 PM

zinc alloy

The trailers look lousy......I'm getting a bad feeling about this one

Dec 6 - 07:44 PM

Bryan Jensen

They should toss out the reviews by the ahole critics who give it a rotten rating just because of the frame rate.

Dec 6 - 05:59 PM

Honestly, since PJ wants people to see it in 48fps, it SHOULD be a factor in a review. But that's just my humble opinion.

Dec 6 - 06:01 PM

Giacomo Acosta

I'm with you man, i think they don't even read the boog before they watch the movie, they are just comparing 2 different stories the hobbit and LOTR, the hoit was a children tale the critics are 2 dumb to understand that Peter had to develope the story as it is now

Dec 6 - 04:59 PM

Noah Abraham Goucher

Critics shouldn't HAVE to read the book to like a movie. It's a MOVIE, not a BOOK. Also, some critics have read the book and still didn't like it. So... awkward.

Dec 15 - 10:53 PM

Anna Vascotto

And by the way, to everyone around, I am a big fan of LotR & stuff, but don't make yourself act silly by saying "everyone that tries to say that LotR is less than awesome is shit" because you are being exactly as Twilight fans!
Just, if you see someone acting stupid, that is not because they don't like LotR, but by default: there are stupid fans AND stupid haters. Stop shitting on them just because you are a Middle-Earth fondamentalist -.-"

Dec 6 - 03:53 PM

Anna Vascotto

What the hell, at this point we can just hope that WE ourselves will find it awesome. If the other don't like it... well, just look at the % they gave to other movies...
I don't care until I find it terrible. But in the internet you can find some other comments, really good about the movie (look for collider, empire etc., some SERIOUS magazines!).
So... just hope... and remember that by not caring about critics will make them more angry at this movie and at the fans... don't care about stupid people :P

Dec 6 - 03:49 PM

David Bailey

The real reviews come out in a couple of weeks when fans of the book have a chance to see the movie for themselves. Disregard the critics and the jerks trying to antagonize people on here. Their most favorite movies are the crappy shoot 'em up cop and hoodlum flicks that you rent for 1 buck at the Redbox or Netflix.

Dec 6 - 03:47 PM

Right on, David.

Dec 6 - 03:49 PM

Why is this movie so highly anticipated? It's only part one of an already flawed franchise. Peter Jackson always makes the shittiest movies.

Dec 6 - 03:35 PM

You are entitled to your opinion. Many, including myself, hold that the original Lord of the Rings trilogy ranks among the finest achievements of cinema.

Dec 6 - 03:42 PM

I never understood why

Dec 6 - 03:45 PM

I may be assuming too much, but I'm guessing that you haven't read the books or found much appreciation for Tolkien. Hence, you aren't likely to appreciate the film adaptations of his works.

Dec 6 - 03:49 PM

No I haven't read the books so I see your point. But I lost all respect for Peter Jackson after he made the god awful District 9 which has nothing to do with Lord of the Rings

Dec 6 - 03:53 PM

Peter, made you should get your facts straight before waging war on Peter Jackson. Jackson merely PRODUCED District 9.

Dec 6 - 03:55 PM

But it seems like every movie he's a part of I tend to hate

Dec 6 - 03:57 PM

You're precisely correct; it has nothing to do with Lord of the Rings. Spielberg has made some bad films too. No one argues that a few bad films by a director should discredit every product of that director, especially a film that won a record-winning 11 Academy Awards (Return of the King).

Dec 6 - 03:59 PM

See theres one of the reasons i don't care for LOTR. I was mad at Return of the King for robbing Mystic River of the Oscar that year.

Dec 6 - 04:02 PM

That being said, if you hold fast to a stringent distaste for anything touched by Peter Jackson, and you have no appreciation for Tolkien, I'm rather curious what brought you here in the first place. There are lots of other things you could be doing with your time.

Dec 6 - 04:02 PM

I could be upset about The King's Speech winning over True Grit two years ago, simply because I like westerns more. But I can appreciate the King's Speech and see how it deserved to win.

Dec 6 - 04:03 PM

Or like when Forrest Gump won over Pulp Fiction. I was just trying to see what people find so interesting about Lord of the Rings and I thank you for commenting on my opinion.

Dec 6 - 04:09 PM

I don't blame you whatsoever for not finding LOTR interesting. I'm actually quite surprised that such a niche literature genre generated so much buzz and box office success. It really comes down to appreciating Tolkien's fantasy. If you appreciate it, you may not necessarily love the movies, but you most likely will. If you don't appreciate it, you will undoubtedly hate the films. It's all about the subject matter. I thought Moneyball was phenomenal, but all my non-baseball fan friends thought it was dull and pointless. Simply put, I find the movies interesting because I find the books interesting. If you don't find them interesting, I don't blame you at all. It's all about your tastes in entertainment, and you have to have a very particular affinity for fantasy, allegory, or Tolkien to be interested in the movies.

Dec 6 - 04:13 PM

@Peter
You have a Pulp Fiction avatar so you have to have some good taste in movies

Dec 6 - 04:56 PM

William Costigan

Well Pulp Fiction is one of my favorite movies but Lord of the Rings is also one of my favorites so its weird to me that someone could like one but hate the other.

Dec 6 - 07:58 PM

You don't need to read the books to "appreciate" the LOTR trilogy, as films they should be able to stand on their own. If you found the movies boring it's pretty much the fault on the movie, not the viewer. For instance, I found them entirely lacking in depth. Evil is bad, Good is good, black and white, no middle ground. Lots of close-up shots in place of genuine emotion, difficult to hear what anybody is saying i.e. Gandalf who prefers to mumble all his lines in place of actually acting. Golem is a terrible character, reminded me of Jar Jar Binks, etc. But to each their own I guess. We can't all have shitty taste.

Dec 6 - 08:51 PM

In Your Dreams, you're a fucking stud. I totally agree with you in the fact that you shouldn't have to read to books to enjoy the movie.

Dec 6 - 09:12 PM

I agree with him 100% as well. I never said you have to read the books, nor did I remotely suggest it was the fault of the viewer. I hadn't read the books when I first watched the trilogy. What I said, which was remarkably misconstrued, was that you need to have some interest in high fantasy or the subject matter. That goes without saying. If you hate the subject matter, you're going to probably hate the movies, hence my Moneyball example.

Dec 7 - 10:49 AM

Dude what was wrong with District 9. That movie was awesome.

Dec 8 - 04:58 PM

So Peter, you hold a grudge against a movie because it won some stupid award instead of another movie? Oscars are a joke. It's all about ratings.

Dec 6 - 04:03 PM

It's like hating the girl that beat you in the 3rd grade spelling bee because she got an easier word than you.

Dec 6 - 04:04 PM

Matt Mortimer

You never understood why because you're a simpleton. You would be better served having a shiny stick waved in your face for 9 hours.

Dec 6 - 03:49 PM

Val Mordas

Why don't you lick my ass and see what real shit tastes like.

Dec 6 - 04:52 PM

I said that in Clint Eastwoods voice and it was glorious.

Dec 6 - 05:09 PM

Haha that does sound funny when you do it like that.

Dec 7 - 02:41 PM

Matthew Strehlow

Cry some more. I love the taste of fanboy tears!

Dec 6 - 02:57 PM

Kinky!

Dec 6 - 03:03 PM

Pedofile

Dec 6 - 05:08 PM

Hey Zach...look at the current tomato-meter score. OOPS. And that top critic score...ouch.

Dec 6 - 01:54 PM

top critics currently? 20%, average 6.2/10, and 5 reviews (1 fresh).
all? 71%, 6.9/10, 28 reviews (20 fresh).

Dec 7 - 06:13 AM

This comment has been removed.

was just noting tops critics was at 20% with an average rating of 6.2/10, then compared it to the overall critics.

Dec 7 - 08:57 PM

The top critic's reviews are what's keeping it from being certified fresh so far. Kind of disappointing.

Dec 11 - 04:46 PM

Craig Bowen

These early 'Hobbit' reviewers need to get on the same page about a couple of things. Someone's clearly not being honest here, for how are these relatively few 'first' media columnists so wildly disparate about, just as an example, the film's 'pace'? Some say 'slow and boring', 'overlong, overblown' (Hollywood Reporter, Box Office, Cinema Blend), others say 'robustly entertaining and well-paced' (Empire Online, Screen Daily), 'engrossing, action-packed' (Hollywood.com), 'engaging, winning' (Playlist). So is it slow or well-paced? Which is it? Can these people be watching the same movie? And how is it that they focus so heavily on the film's FORMAT (which is only one of many!!!: HFR 3D, IMAX 3D, IMAX, 3D, 2D)? Especially in view of what each KNOWS will be the many and varied CHOICES by which a person may tailor his or her VIEWING of the film to personal taste, what has FORMAT got to do with how these critics 'judge' the CONTENT of the film -- that is, the MOVIE ITSELF (which it is their job to focus on: the story, actor-performances, direction, costuming, cinematography ITSELF: not how the film is PRESENTLY formatted, as this will be variously, inevitably different for everyone: it will CHANGE) and which seems to so heavily 'weigh in' on their 'bottom line' or final analysis? How trite to judge an entire film, allow such a factor to impact so dramatically on final verdict, by focusing on its format! FORMAT IS NOT THE FILM! Go see it in 2D traditional 'flicker' mode and THEN TELL ME WHAT IT IS -- not how a particular viewing mode (which you may loathe) makes it, for the MOMENT, look (I've got choices just like you, so don't tell me how I'm destined to see it: I may see it in a wholly different mode, and who knows, I may LIKE the very one you hate). In any event, here's to what one reviewer perceives in the film to be a 'purist's delight' and 'mythologically dense' Yeah!! Want more of THAT baby! -- Bring. It. On. Mr. Jackson!!! And I'll be the judge myself, thank you.

Dec 6 - 11:34 AM

True. I think most of the negative reviews are an indictment of the length, frame rate, source material, or the fantasy-themed narrative. Like Craig and Zach, I will judge The Hobbit's merits for myself. We don't need a website or critics to reaffirm our appreciation of a film, and especially not our enjoyment of the experience. We're all independent thinkers here, or at least most of us are.

Dec 6 - 12:46 PM

This comment has been removed.

Tallulah Robinson

Arg, I just realised this wasn't a facebook-attached thing and I cannot like comments. Just pretend I liked this.

Dec 7 - 02:36 AM

yeah, i dislike that aspect as well. i wanted to like so many things.

Dec 10 - 04:28 PM

i mean it not being a 'facebook thing'.

Dec 10 - 04:28 PM

Sebastian Diaz

if u watch the vlogs on youtube you know they really worked hard you can tell by the tired faces of the crew, and i hate how they are trashing something i always think is for having the firsts bad opinions.

Dec 6 - 10:00 AM

Lancol Et

They worked hard on John Carter too. Also, Cloud Atlas. You can work hard and be tired out but still not have produced good work.

Dec 6 - 11:56 AM

exactly, lancol! i was about to say that. hard work doesn't necessarily mean it's a good movie.

Dec 7 - 06:15 AM

Austin Williamson

If it's not good, it's not good. Directors make less than great movies every now and then, not everything they touch is a masterpiece. It might be good, but usually people know what they're talking about. Otherwise, they wouldn't have that job.

Dec 6 - 07:51 AM

This comment has been removed.

Lancol Et

Rumor is if this doesn't make 5x it's cost that WB is pulling the plug on the next 2 parts.

Dec 6 - 11:57 AM

This comment has been removed.

This is a great thread Zach!

Dec 6 - 11:09 AM

Jackson's best movie is Dead Alive! For real, I'm not even kidding. It's so fucking beautiful

Dec 5 - 09:36 PM

This comment has been removed.

haha nice. Yea, he's a special lil guy

Dec 5 - 09:48 PM

Paul Barrett

I actually think one of his best movies is Bad Taste. Wasn't really a big fan of Dead Alive.

Dec 10 - 07:15 PM

my biggest problem is they have all these worthless dwarfs and not the one i like gimli oh and if you want me to rate which is the worst rings movies id say by default the two towers because its a middle movie and the walking tree crap was boring it has good action and gollum but the walking tree bit makes it worse than fellowship and return of the king.

Dec 5 - 08:19 PM

Finally a post worth something. GOOD JOB.

Dec 5 - 08:20 PM

This comment has been removed.

whos a transformer lover? those movies suck hard.

Dec 5 - 09:16 PM

Tallulah Robinson

Ok Zach, so that was intense. You were so nice, and now this. Made ma laugh.

Dec 7 - 02:39 AM

Sean Patrick

I think the film isn't what the critics were expecting. It's so completely immersed in Middle Earth, showing the setting with extended shots of the locations and creatures and characters, that film critics are kind of disheartened when it takes 45 minutes to get to the plot. I don't think many of them have actually read the book... Sounds like it will be a flawless representation to me. As far as critical reviews go, I'd be lying if I said the prospects looked good.

Dec 5 - 06:39 PM

Aaron Coot

Peter Jackson, like all directors, has the ability to make mediocre films and bad films.

Dec 5 - 05:04 PM

Lovely Bones is a perfect example of Jackson dishing out a mediocre movie. I can only hope The Hobbit is better.

Dec 5 - 05:06 PM

Porkenstein the Great

I always knew it would get an 80... and that currently appears to be the trend. The first few reviews are only a ballpark estimate.

Dec 5 - 04:42 PM

Steve Rechter

Is this the sort of thing we thought we'd see when we imagined the amazing possibilities of communicating our interests over the internet? This garbage? This is what we do with our capabilities? We argue about some numbers on something called a TOMATOmeter then verbally shellack any opposing viewpoint regardless of truth and reason? Why? Are we all movie fans here? Zach, are you a fan of film? You're doing it a disservice I'm sorry to say. Your ideas are fine and totally reasonable but you present them in such a bombastic, hard-headed manner that very few will take your side. I made a joke earlier on one of your comments based on a play on words mistake, I wasn't attacking you. You proceeded to brashly, rudely insult my intelligence by calling me "retarded." Where are the goals here, buddy? Where are you headed? Just thought I'd ask. I've seen threads just like this everywhere. I thought it would be interesting to actually see what motivates such behavior. I also didn't appreciate the retarded remark at all. You're better than that.

Dec 5 - 03:37 PM

This comment has been removed.

Ellison Horne

Great thread Zachary! Anytime someone owns up to giving an apology such as you have, is an inspiration and certainly worth my time. It's something I need to be better at. As for the film, I saw it last night. I will see it again next week. However, I must say it may not have been the best decision to turn what was to be 2 films into 3. It felt to me like being in an airplane that keeps touching down on an extended runway before finally taking off during the last 5 minutes. As a video producer, what I love most is editing. And that is one of the things that I loved about LOTR, from the very first episode. In HOBBITT, the editing is very weak and undermines the integrity of the storyline. There are certainly moments when I felt uplifted, that we were gaining the momentum needed to really fly high, and then suddenly, thud, we're back on the ground, but still moving forward. I could also do a little knit-picking with some of the performances by the returning actors, but it's not worth it. I'll see how I feel after the second viewing. All-in-all, it's a fantastic achievement with some amazing and wonderfully creative surprises. In my book, this is certainly worthy of a 10-star rating, diminished only by the editing, making it, 8 stars. I'm very interested in what others think about it.

Dec 6 - 02:21 AM

scifi mark

My predicition will be that it will end up 70-80 with 80 being optimistic. The acting looks solid which should keep it up there. I dont see it dropping to 50-60

Dec 5 - 06:35 AM

i bet my left nut this shitty movie goes down like a 1 dollar hooker and the final score will be 50 percent so go cry little bitch

Dec 5 - 03:30 PM

You have experience with $1 hookers, huh?

Dec 5 - 03:30 PM

This comment has been removed.

i like the star wars prequels dumbass i bet they will shit all over this lord of the rings prequels. peter jackson is a poor mans george lucas. king kong sucked aswell only good movie he made was the frighteners.

Dec 5 - 08:05 PM

redlettermedia can fuck itself all 6 star wars movies are awesome in there own way they are not the prequels are not as shit as indiana jones 4.

Dec 5 - 09:33 PM

Josiah Coulter

I love all 6 Star Wars, and The Lord of the Rings, and I'm sure I will love The Hobbit.

Dec 6 - 01:11 PM

Geordie- fuck you, RLM is the best you faghole

Dec 6 - 07:44 PM

Your Mum

I want to know how all these reviews have been made, when Peter hasn't even finished editing the film yet? They are clearly reviewing from watching the trailer. A bloody outrage.

Dec 5 - 02:44 AM

Your Mum

And I agree with Zachary. He sounds like a nice boy.

Dec 5 - 04:49 AM

Ralph Myers

Oi! do some damn research, it premiered the 28th

Dec 5 - 09:30 AM

you've exposed yourself as one of those people who jump to conclusions without even bothering to look up any facts.

Dec 5 - 01:17 PM

What do you even mean "hasn't even finished editing the film yet"? It comes in a couple weeks! Of course it's been edited!

Dec 5 - 01:41 PM

Ralph Myers

Nah man he was right about that part, it premiered on the 28th and i'm pretty sure editing was only finished like the day before or something, it was a close call, movies somethings get release dates before theyre even started, when the first trailer for the movie came out they simply shot the trailer, they weren't even filming the actual movie yet

Dec 5 - 01:51 PM

Thanks. Didn't know that. They are cutting it pretty close.

Dec 5 - 01:58 PM

if it premiered the 28th and editing was finished the day before, the exactly HOW does that make your mum right? that means jackson finished editing the movie (unless he wants to tweak things around before the theatrical release) before the critics saw it. that means your mum is wrong.

thing is, doesn't mean danny is right. if there were no premiere and no reviews yet and we were looking only at the release date, we couldn't really tell if it's been fully edited or not. some movies are done way in advance while others are a very close call. with this movie though, it was done before critics saw it an no review is from someone who hasn't seen the movie and only saw the trailer, like your mum has suggested.

Dec 5 - 02:02 PM

This comment has been removed.

Be careful! He might be into that!

Dec 4 - 11:04 PM

Nathan Ludwig

Brainwashed by the Tomatometer. So sad.

Dec 4 - 09:44 PM

It's more common than you might think. People seem to worship it.

Dec 4 - 09:44 PM

This comment has been removed.

But the tomatometer represents critics.

Dec 5 - 10:12 AM

This comment has been removed.

MAD AS SHIT

Dec 4 - 09:41 PM

fuck off its my opinion THE MATRIX TRILOGY>>>THE RINGS TRILOGY. the matrix shit on tolkeins grave

Dec 4 - 09:45 PM

umadufrurious

Dec 4 - 09:46 PM

Fuck that. Lord of the Rings kicks the shit out of the Matrix.

Dec 5 - 02:33 PM

James Phoenix

How can somethig that is made of shit have the ability to shit on Tolkien's grave?

Dec 5 - 09:19 PM

So not even close. The only great Matrix movie was the first one while the second one was just good. I dare not go on about the third one. All of the LOTR trilogy was great and if you don't think so I question you're movie taste.

Dec 5 - 07:03 AM

This comment has been removed.

Edgy brah

Dec 4 - 08:19 PM

Almost as EDGY as this bad-asses sunglasses that he's waring INDOORS what a beast. He probably still asks his mom if it's ok for him to host sleep-overs with his buddies. What a bro

Dec 4 - 09:19 PM

He must be from the Matrix. Chilln' wit Morpheus and Neo. What a playa'.

Dec 4 - 09:21 PM

Haha indeed.
Takin it in his 'rabbit hole' from the both of them. He probably drinks Slim-Fast with his Happy Meals from McDonalds for dinner. Swag.

Dec 4 - 09:45 PM

That's what I've said; Critics always get away with murder (it's an expression). They're conspirators and have or are accomplices. Hopefully the film should go over 75% or more.

Dec 4 - 07:49 PM

It's all a big conspiracy huh? Tell me more...

Dec 4 - 08:14 PM

their job is to try to give honest, subjective opinions on movies to help others in deciding whether or not they want to go see a movie. some fail to be fully honest, but after a while they're easy to spot. they're here to analyze the movie and to say how good it is, not to appease how everyone thinks the movie is going to be.

Dec 5 - 01:21 PM

Frank Jaramillo

The percentage is irrelevant, the only thing that will matter is that the majority of people like the film. I have a feeling that the rating will be at least higher than The Amazing Spiderman's.

Dec 4 - 06:25 PM

Me too.

Dec 5 - 07:04 AM

Or maybe not. It doesn't seem like that now.

Dec 8 - 04:55 PM

Need a tissue for your issue? C'mon kid, an RT score won't determin if the movie will be bad or good

Dec 4 - 06:17 PM

This comment has been removed.

That's the spirit. Though again, it's unfair to think that the critics who disliked it did so solely because of CGI. It's most likely narrative issues as well. I personally disregard all critics who bitch about the 48fps. It was experimental, and you have the option to see it in the traditional 24fps, so I don't see the issue.

Dec 4 - 08:07 PM

If critics say there's pacing issues, take it with a grain of salt. After you see it, you can decide if there was truth to what they said or not. Obviously nothing is deterring you from seeing it regardless, which is a good thing considering how much you want to.

Dec 4 - 08:31 PM

Matt White

An RT rating doesn't mean the movie will be any better or worse. Everyone has the power to make up their own minds.

Dec 4 - 03:55 PM

Saetre Saetre

Not everyone, apparently.

Dec 7 - 01:23 AM

Well not all the reviews are even posted yet, so calm down.

Dec 4 - 03:35 PM

Zachary,

I really hate to drop the F bomb here, but you sound like a butthurt fanboy whose arguments are completely divorced from critical thinking or common sense whatsoever. You broadly insult and assume the tastes of those who don't agree with you and offer no substantive thoughts to support anything you say. Not that there is anything to disagree with, because you haven't seen the movie, which brings me to my point.

When will people learn that a film is not immune to criticism? It doesn't matter what the source material is, the pedigree of the filmmakers, or the acclaim of previous works. If the film has issues, critics will let you know, but saying a film is destined to be great because it's "anticipated", before you've even seen it is the most laughable kind of ignorance. You have absolutely no idea if they will, or how much they will screw up the material, and the more hollow assumptions you make, the dumber you look. I can understand hoping something will be good, or even expecting it will be, but deluding yourself into thinking critic's opinions suddenly are worthless just to shield yourself from disappointment is extremely immature.

The film's not perfect, that explains the reviews, and if your own personal sense of validation rests solely on a Rotten Tomatoes percentage, you're doing it wrong. Be satisfied with your own opinions. If people don't unanimously agree, you shouldn't care, and if you must, defend with empirical evidence and legitimate critical analysis upon actually SEEING the film, and I'm sure many people would be happy to engage in a substantive debate. Until then, let's ditch these ridiculous threads, and if you want to fling insults around like a monkey with shit, allow me to direct you to the YouTube comments section.

Dec 4 - 02:06 PM

You didn't say fuck.

Dec 4 - 02:30 PM

h h

I think the "F word" here was "fanboy". Anyways, I agree with Vinny regarding the people here. Jeez, it's just someone disagreeing, calm down!

Dec 4 - 05:47 PM

I was thinking that's what he meant.

Dec 4 - 05:48 PM

Mike Kowzun

*claps*

Dec 4 - 03:13 PM

Tom Smith

Vinny Andreotti is a joke, a crybaby, and even more immature than Zachary. He is equally "butthurt" from a simple discussion thread, to the point where he has to write out three REVISED pseudo-intellectual paragraphs, filled with much thought and effort, as if he was graded on it. Evidence that he has no life and cares about insignificant things. The people who complain about people complaining about critics (Vinny) are just as bad/immature as the people who complain about critics (Zachery). According to Vinny's logic, Zachary is not allowed have an opinion about another's opinion, but ONLY vinny himself can. OKAY, PRINCESS.

Dec 4 - 04:04 PM

h h

So now being eloquent, balanced and civil is being a butthurt crybaby? Okay...

Dec 4 - 05:50 PM

it's hilarious how ironic you're being by posting this.

Dec 4 - 06:01 PM

Thank you Tom, for completely proving my point. I rest my case.

Dec 4 - 07:52 PM

vinny, you're replying to me yet using the name 'tom'. did you reply to the wrong person or use the wrong name? if you meant to reply to me, i'm glad i helped prove your point. if you're being sarcastic, well, i was agreeing with you.

Dec 5 - 01:24 PM

h h

I think he was replying to Tom Smith.

Dec 5 - 06:26 PM

Again, I never said Zachary was not allowed an opinion. If you read what I said, that is clear. I said it makes no sense to have an opinion based on assumptions toward a product you've never seen. I personally have no stake in the film at all. I was just pointing something out. And yes, you're correct, I did copy and paste a similar sentiment elsewhere, because it applied. I'm glad you agree that it was filled with much thought, but effort? If twenty minutes constitutes at effort, that give me that A i so rightfully demand. Complaining is good. Hell, it's a right. I complain about those who BASELESSLY complain, and there's a difference. I respect others opinions when said opinion is in an informed and intelligent matter based on FACT and not FEELING, something you seem completely oblivious to. I do have to admit, watching you assert what you think as evidence is very funny.

Dec 4 - 07:59 PM

Matt Goddard

That's very interesting Tom. Very interesting. Veeery Interesting. Veeeeeeery... ok, I'm done.

Dec 4 - 08:00 PM

And as far as having no life, this is actually the first response on RT I've ever given. Something tells me I can't say the same for you. Again, I get a sadistic enjoyment out of watching you whine and attempt to defile my intellectual superiority (sarcasm).

Dec 4 - 08:02 PM

i wonder what he'll be saying once he sees the movie (assuming he'll be fully honest with himself and not forcefully enjoy it to lower his cognitive dissonance).

Dec 4 - 06:10 PM

Matt Goddard

Agreed, same thing was happening with the Dark Knight Rises. Some people have to realize that an opinion is an opinion, and nothing more. Even more pathetic when you're acting like this without having even seen the movie.

Dec 4 - 07:58 PM

Now there's a movie I greatly anticipated yet was slightly disappointed by. I remember being elated that it held at 87% only to realize that that didn't ensure the movie was TEH BEST EVAR. At least from my humble perspective, anyway.

That review (SHAMELESS PLUG ALERT) is here. http://vinnyandreotti.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-dark-knight-rises-review.html

You wanna talk about pseudo-intellectual paragraphs?! ENJOY!! REMEMBER, MY OPINION IS ABOVE ALL OTHERS OH FEEBLE MISCREANTS.

Dec 4 - 08:17 PM

I meant to say geekgasm.

Dec 4 - 01:28 PM

To be honest, I was pretty surprised when I saw the score. Especially seeing the score on Metacritic. But really, I can't say or do anything, seeing as we barely have got into this, I haven't seen the film and am nothing like the people who preferred to send death threats to those who criticised 'The Dark Knight Rises'.

But I can't wait. I don't want to miss out on something I might think is brilliant, plus it's got many of my favourite actors in it (I also found out they're showing the Star Trek Into Darkness trailer at its debut - nerdgasms aplenty).

Dec 4 - 01:26 PM

FYI, I think the Star Trek intro is in the IMAX showings only.

Dec 4 - 08:59 PM

scifi mark

yes its only in the imax 3d

Dec 5 - 06:29 AM

3D? Shit, son. I guess I won't be seeing it then. I'll have to wait till it comes on YouTube. I like IMAX, hate 3D.

Dec 5 - 12:00 PM

This is the stupidest excuse for a thread I have ever seen. First of all, learn to write before you use the internet. Secondly: if the movie SUCKS, it will be reviewed as such. Mystical, I know. You have no one but yourself to blame for building hype. Personally, I think the movie looks absolutely terrible-- more goblin-elf shit. Whoopee. it's obviously cashing in on the look and feel of the LOTR trilogy to appeal to the same viewer-base, which is just plain LAZY. When I think "prequel", I imagine at the very least a fresh look and feel, and different actors FFS, not a carbon copy of the same bad films I saw a decade ago. For instance, I like how it takes place BEFORE Fellowship, but Gandalf is somehow OLDER. Wtf. This one looks like a pass for me, in no small part to frothing fanboys like you.

Dec 4 - 01:07 PM

This comment has been removed.

In Your Dreams just likes to troll threads that don't appeal to him/her.

Dec 4 - 03:38 PM

James Phoenix

Because bitches be crazy.

Dec 5 - 09:24 PM

Seems like your attitude is the reverse of the fanboys... "I don't want to like it, therefore I will trash it on the internet and anyone who wants to like it as well." Either way, it's just as pathetic.

Dec 4 - 01:28 PM

Why would a prequel need a "fresh look and feel" than the original films? Please explain.

Dec 4 - 01:33 PM

Haters gonna hate, as they say. Being reasonable and logical scarcely enters into it.

Dec 4 - 01:34 PM

Reviews I've written: 43

Reviews you've written: Page not found ;]

Dec 6 - 09:13 PM

@In Your Dreams. Reviews you've written that anyone gives a shit about: 0

Dec 7 - 02:45 PM

@In Your Dreams. What does that have to do with anything? That you have more time on your hands than me? I've seen nothing on these threads that indicate any sort of rational thought beyond trying to provoke a response. So, in that sense, congratulations.

Dec 8 - 12:35 PM

Okay, the Hobbit takes place in the same world, so of course it's going to have a relatively similiar look. I don't know what trailer you saw, but there is an entirely new cast with the exception of Ian McKellen as Gandalf. And when you get older, you look older.

Dec 4 - 03:40 PM

Well, it also has Cate Blanchett, Elijah Wood, Andy Serkis, Ian Holm, Orlando Bloom, and Christopher Lee all returning.

Dec 4 - 03:43 PM

But none of those characters are part of the central group and they probably aren't going to be in there for very long.

Dec 4 - 04:05 PM

@ Cody Gomes Oh, so you're only talking about major characters. Didn't know that. And Orlando Bloom will appear in Mirkwood I assume, as Legolas is a Mirkwood Elf. How much screen time he get's a questionable.

Dec 4 - 04:06 PM

Paul Barrett

I think his point was that the Hobbit takes place before LOTR, therefore Gandalf should look younger. In that, he is correct. But to me he looks about the same age, which, if you're 5000 years old, you probably would look the same after only sixty years. I've seen the movie, and while In Your Dreams needs to learn some tact, he is somewhat correct in his statements. The movie does look too much like LOTR, which is a mistake (in my opinion) because the Hobbit has a much lighter tone to it, so I feel the movie should. Jackson brings in too many elements that were not in the book to tie it in to LOTR, and they feel out of place and a distraction. I'm a big fan and loved the original movies, but this one, while not horrible, was disappointing.

Dec 6 - 12:24 PM

In your dreams has recently been the biggest cunt on RT. Even more cuntier than "The Stunner" he was alpha for awhile

Dec 4 - 09:24 PM

Francesco Fortuna

Whatever happened to that guy? He seemed like a nice fellow.

Dec 5 - 09:31 AM

I kept replying to him and he said he left this website for good to get a new life. Besides, he was a douche

Dec 5 - 05:15 PM

"In Your Dreams has recently been the biggest cunt on RT." Truer words have never been spoken. Well done, Chum Chum.

Dec 5 - 02:38 PM

I try

Dec 5 - 04:42 PM

Awww... You mad bro?

Dec 6 - 09:07 PM

Whats there to be mad about? I think everyones a cunt, thats why I have no friends

Dec 6 - 09:52 PM

Don't get worried at this point. It's far too early. Besides, the only thing that matters is your opinion. Perhaps you will be disappointed, maybe not, who knows? Don't let the trolls get to you, either. The haters are just as bad as rapid fanboys. They've decided they don't want to like this movie before they've even seen it. My guess is this will finish in the low 60th percentile, which pretty much says "it's up to you to decide, movie goer."

Dec 4 - 12:12 PM

If critical opinion doesn't matter to you, then why are you on a review site? The professionals have spoken, The Hobbit fails as both an adaptation and a LOTR cash-in, better luck next time :] Perhaps it's time to stop hinging your existence on other people's opinions? Otherwise, you really need to work out your priorities. If you have already decided the film is going to be a good before you've even seen it, that anyone who disagrees is just a "hater", there's no point in arguing with you because you are just another delusional fanboy. Enjoy your crappy film and personal hell!

Dec 6 - 09:05 PM

@In Your Dreams: Wow, you have real issues, dude. If the most important thing in your life is being rude and irrational then I suspect you enjoy flooding the internet with your bile on many other sites. Where did I say that anyone who disagrees with me is a hater? I have no opinion on the film; I haven't seen it. You, however, clearly do have an opinion on it. Stop trying to exercise your faux-masculinity by using harsh words on people you don't even know. Show me one place where I have pre-decided the film will be good, tough guy. I cannot help but feel you must be very young and will outgrow this phase. I feel for your family, I really do.

Dec 8 - 12:22 PM

scifi mark

There is no reason this movie should be almost 3 hours long. The book is half as long as any of the lotr books and they are splitting into 3 movies even though they are adding more than what is in the hobbit into the 3 movies. Two hours would of been sufficient. Still cant wait to see it though

Dec 4 - 11:58 AM

Thaddeus Venture

The percentage fluctuates a lot until it compiles at least 50 reviews. Relax, who cares what the score is on RT?

Dec 4 - 11:56 AM

Mikkel �stergaard

Well, the reviews are kind of meh, and the three films got a whole lot of reviews. We currently only have 15 for this. And seriously, criticizing the beginning and length, didn't they do that on The Lord of the Rings too?

Dec 4 - 11:07 AM

John Casey

Trolololololol

Dec 4 - 10:56 AM

Angelo Auf

Someone's severly butthurt. Get a grip.

Dec 4 - 08:55 AM

This comment has been removed.

Angelo Auf

Funny.

Dec 4 - 11:24 AM

Francesco Fortuna

This will probably be Like star wars all over again. My excitement for this movie just dropped substantially. A 71 is really low considering the LOTR films all got higher than 90%. It's still too early to tell if this is going to end up fresh or rotten. I'll still see it, I just won't be as excited if these kinds of reviews keep coming it.

Dec 4 - 08:43 AM

This comment has been removed.

it's a valid comparison in that there was an original fantasy-epic trilogy that was well-liked and very popular, then a lengthy period of time passed (16 for sw, 9 for lotr) before the prequel trilogy came out to mixed reviews (early assumption). it's not the end of the world, but it certainly seems disappointing.

of course, this film will be nearly critic-proof, at least at the start. if they are actually bad films, then they won't perform very well (unlike lotr, which performed better with each movie).

Dec 4 - 09:00 AM

Magnus Grant

I agree. when a new film comes out after a lengthy period of time, it disappoints a lot of fans and suffers from extreme backlash. I'm a huge Star Wars fan and I love the prequels as well though I grew up with both trilogies so I warmed up to them more than others. I'm quite concerned that The Hobbit may suffer from the same shit Phantom Menace got.

Dec 4 - 10:00 AM

magnus, it's true hype can build a lot in the time between movies. i feel that episode 1 deserves the backlash, though. having creating such an expansive, epic world to draw from, lucas failed to make a very good story. i feel this is because his first draft of the script was not revised as no one would question his authority on anything. too much creative control is what the prequels suffered from (which funnels into all the other problems facing them).

however, when i was younger when the prequels came out, i loved them and thought they were awesome. now that i'm older though, i can see why people didn't like them.

Dec 5 - 01:29 PM

also, no one is stopping you from watching and enjoying the movie. these critics are just giving their honest opinions. many of them are probably fans just like you.

Dec 4 - 09:01 AM

You say you don't give a damn about the reviews, yet you started this thread bitching about them. And of course there is the fact you haven't even seen the film yet, so how can you judge the critical reception?

Dec 4 - 10:38 AM

Mike Kowzun

Who knows? Maybe they *gasp* DIDN'T LIKE IT?

Dec 4 - 08:16 AM

they're not allowed to do that. this is sacred material. no criticism allowed! they can't just expect to give their honest opinions and get away with it! is this some sort of free world where people can have differing views? no, it isn't. this movie needs to be 100%.

;) (jokes)

Dec 4 - 08:52 AM

When should the time bomb for death threats against the critics who criticise it explode? This is going to be deja vu.

Dec 4 - 01:32 PM

this won't be much of an issue anymore. i think the moderators take things more seriously after tdkr.

Dec 5 - 01:31 PM

Todd Garry

And this is why they shouldn't have made three movies...

Dec 4 - 08:13 AM

This comment has been removed.

Anthony Pearson

May be hard considering the 3 films have been shot back to back.

Dec 4 - 08:06 AM

Lancol Et

I meant that they can fix up the problems not to stop making them. I guess the fails are in the CG and pacing. Both can be fixed in post

Dec 4 - 08:18 AM

Anthony Pearson

Yeah, whilst I've not see the first one so can't judge, I hope they do 2 - 2 hour movies for parts 2 and 3, rather than 2 - 3 hour movies. Leave that for the extended DVD's for fans.

Dec 4 - 08:24 AM

Anthony Pearson

@Zachary

Yeah I agree, it's just too late for the first one to be 2 hours now, unless you make selective toilet breaks of course.

Dec 4 - 09:32 AM

This comment has been removed.

Steve Rechter

What a quote. "You didn't anticipate the most anticipated film of the year?" Dear me, dear me I hadn't even noticed! Surely if we all knew such things we would have anticipated this now clearly anticipating film! I'll have to come to you from now on for help with things like this.

I anticipate your response. The most anticipated response of the year!

Dec 4 - 08:47 AM

i actually laughed out loud. congratulations. :)

Dec 4 - 09:09 AM

The Hobbit is not the most anticipated movie of the year... The Dark Knight Rises is and has always been

Dec 4 - 09:14 AM

Magnus Grant

I agree. TDKR had a much bigger marketing campaign than The Hobbit and was pretty much on top of most anticipated films of 2012.

Dec 4 - 10:20 AM

Whatever becomes the highest-grossing film of the year is automatically proven as the most anticipated to the majority. That honor so far goes to The Avengers.

Dec 4 - 11:03 AM

The amount of money a movie earns doesn't conclude how anticipated it was. The Avengers wasn't even CLOSE to being as anticipated as all the fans was over the past 4 years, most of the people who saw The Avengers didn't even know the other movies were tied to it like... everyone I know.

Dec 5 - 08:14 AM

lucas, since you disagree with the box office indicating how anticipated a movie is, care to give your definition of 'anticipation'? i feel the fact that the avengers opened with a record breaking $207 million shows that even though it may not have been anticipated as long at tdkr, it was much more anticipated by the time the movie released (not only is it the first movie to break $200 million weekend, the record is the largest jump in opening weekend grosses ever, almost being a $40 million jump over the record hp8 made not even a year before).

Dec 5 - 01:38 PM

^What Thom Stone said.

Dec 5 - 07:01 PM

Nearly every single site that talks about movies has had TDKR on top when they talk about "Most Anticipated Movie of 2012", the tragic events in Colorado really turned off alot of people to watch the film (rating said about 40%) and for god sake you can't brag about The Avengers scoring over 200 million dollars the opening weekend when the big jump was 3D + IMAX. The Dark Knight Rises was predicted to earn up to 214 million dollars the opening weekend. But the amount of money a movie earns is not what calculates it as the most anticipated movie of the year. Alot of people saw The Dark Knight and already anticipated the TDKR while all the Marvel movies hardly made an impact on the boxoffice (The Incredible Hulk grossed about 260 million worldwide). Meanwhile the entire internet exploded when TDK came out, people loved it and anticipated the third movie ever since.

Dec 8 - 05:45 AM

Also, sure I saw The Avengers in the theatre in 3D, that makes me contribute it more then if I see The Dark Knight Rises because it's more expensive... but why the hell does that mean that I anticipated The Avengers more?

Dec 8 - 05:46 AM

most anticipated by internet sites what talk about movies does not mean most anticipated in real life among average movie-going people. would you like to state exactly what percentage of tickets sold were 3d and imax tickets and how much they increased the box office. also, tdkr was released in imax. if you want to strike the avengers for imax grosses, then you have to do it for tdkr as well.

tdkr i saw predictions for tdkr anywhere from $170-$210 million. not all predictions were over $200 million. most i've seen were around $190 million. what 'rating' are you talking about that said 40%? yes, people can remark at how much the avengers made since it was the biggest jump in opening weekend record ever and first to cross $200 million. the avengers was predicted to make $160-$170 million and it shattered those predictions. tdkr was below nearly every prediction, and it can't even really be calculated if to what degree the shooting played a role.

if you want to talk about ticket prices being higher, you have to take into account matinees, children/senior/student discounts, special coupons, imax and 3d showings, the various ticket prices at different locations, etc. it's complex as fuck, almost to the point of being moot.

Dec 8 - 03:28 PM

so, your definition of anticipation are movie sites (which don't reflect the majority of people), internet response to tdk, then you point out the lowest grossing marvel movie (ignoring iron man $585.2 mil, iron man 2 $623.9 mil, thor $449.3 mil, and captain america $368.6 mil, which all grossed more than the incredible hulk $263.4 mil) after saying the box office take doesn't really correlate to how anticipated a movie can be...

i still don't know what your definition of anticipation is. even if the avengers didn't have 3d and imax, it would have grossed far more than tdkr, which would mean more people wanted to go see it and DID go see it, which means they anticipated it more, right? the avengers sold more tickets than tdkr (and even more than tdk). it even sold less tickets than spider-man. source?

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/chart/?id=topsuperhero.htm&adjust_yr=1&p=.htm

Dec 8 - 03:40 PM

But now you are using moviesites to state your definition of anticipation dude, and boxofficemojo did predict TDKR would gross 214 million dollars the opening weekend and all the prediction grosses were so much higher than The Avengers which means it was clearly more anticipated because everyone was expecting it to blow everything out of the water at the box office. I don't use moviesites to point out how anticipated TDKR was, it was the only movie i've heard my frickin' teachers and parents being excited over.
You are using the amount of tickets being sold to prove how anticipated The Avengers was which doesn't hold up because alot of people saw it again and parents were taking their kids to see it even though they maybe didn't want to see it at all.
Also I wasn't striking at The Avengers for IMAX grosses, I was striking the Avengers for 3D IMAX grosses which is a hell of alot more expensive than just IMAX.
Everyone I know who saw The Avengers had no idea what it was until they saw that it was coming out a couple of days ahead while they all knew about TDKR for years.
I wouldn't really call Ice Age 4 being anticipated at all and yet that one has made nearly 900 million dollars worldwide if we are going by your logic what anticipation is.

Dec 8 - 04:51 PM

where did i use movie sites to define anticipation? i've stated grosses and ticket sales, which are objective facts, not subjective thoughts like 'the entire internet exploded' and 'nearly every single site that talks about movies has had TDKR on top when they talk about "Most Anticipated Movie of 2012"'. i said before that doesn't reflect reality.

bom predicted $214.7 mil, but was wrong. by a lot ($54 mil). like i said before, most predictions weren't as optimistic and had it around $190 mil. just because people predicted there was anticipation doesn't mean there is anticipation. the had low predictions for the hunger games ($135 mil) based on what they thought was 'anticipation'. they were wrong (actual was $152.5 mil). they had high predictions for breaking dawn part 2 ($158 mil) based on what they thought was anticipation. they were wrong again ($141.1 mil).

so, the amount of anticipation people THINK there is and what anticipation there REALLY is are not the same. my dad hates going to the movies, yet he told me, 'i think i might go see the avengers'. does that mean it's more anticipated that tdkr now because my dad, who dislikes going to movies, has interest in it and not tdkr? no. you can't judge that based on small subjective examples.

Dec 8 - 08:59 PM

i should also note bom predicted the avengers would make $172.5 mil. it made $207.4 mil.

yeah, a lot of people saw both the avengers and tdkr more than once, and both movies probably had people bring their kids (maybe more so to the avengers, but kids tickets cost less).

everyone you know? that's highly subjective and doesn't mean the rest of the people in the world have similar stories. so, a lot of people suddenly had a lot of interest in the movie, even though it was days before the movie? that sounds like anticipation to me, even though it wasn't there for 4 years.

to me, anticipation would be how many people actually wanted to see the movie and ended up going to see the movie, regardless of how long they have been anticipating the movie. me? i thought the avengers was going to be lackluster, just like every marvel movie besides iron man. i wasn't anticipating it that much. however, shortly before the movie, i suddenly had this urge to see it based on the reviews and the positive feedback i was seeing (aside from the trailers, which had me a bit enticed).

if you can provide evidence to show that more people had repeat viewings and that more parents that didn't want to see the movie took their kids to the avengers than tdkr, enough so that tdkr would have made more money, it would gladly agree with you. also, if you can show me how much money the avengers made from 3d imax, imax, and 3d in general, while also taking away the imax showings for tdkr and that tdkr would have grosses more, i would gladly agree.

so, wait... you wouldn't call ice age 4 being anticipated, yet it made $874.9 mil worldwide? then why did people see the movie if it wasn't anticipated. i feel you only think the movies that your friends and family want to see are the movies that are anticipated. that is inherently wrong. so, yes, by my logic ice age 4 was anticipated, more than the amazing spider-man, even though going only to movie sites and asking your friends would have you convinced otherwise, which is because those small sample sizes don't account for the real world.

Dec 8 - 09:17 PM

Ice Age 4 wasn't anticipated by anyone, noone even knew it came out. It's just one of those movies that if you go to the theatre and look at the posters of the movies that are showing that day, you go and see it with your kids because it's a kids film that has been milked to death with sequels so they are bound to know what it is. People anticipated The Amazing Spider-Man WAY more than frickin' Ice Age 4, I don't even recall seeing any trailers for IA4 at all anywhere while The Amazing Spider-Man was all over the place.

You should just know that the tragic Colorado killings turned alot of people off from seeing TDKR in the near future which hurt it alot.
And for god sake, parents wouldn't take their kids to see TDKR as that has been wildly classified as a more grown up movie, especially not since ICE AGE 4 is up at the same time as that movie, why would parents want their kids too see TKDR if there is a kids movie they could watch? People don't have to anticipate movies in order to watch them, I go to the movies ALOT but that doesn't mean i've been sitting at home looking up all the trailers and promotional material for every single film for a long time, I saw Ice Age 4 even though I didn't care much for it, I just saw it because I wanted to see a film.

Dec 9 - 04:04 AM

ice age 4 wasn't anticipated by anyone and no one knew it came out? then how did it make money? again, you're confusing your subjective experience with objective facts. of course you'd be more aware of the amazing spider-man than ice age 4. do you think they'd try to market that movie to you or that you'd go out of your way to find news about.

anyway, i think it's safe to say we disagree and end this pointless discussion. ;)

Dec 9 - 01:21 PM

"Go watch Twilight 4 part 2" Someones mad. I love LOTR and looking forward to the Hobbit, but you are a bit much.

Dec 4 - 10:34 AM

Mikkel �stergaard

The % score is pretty dumb anyway, some of the critic-sites you might not even care about, if you know you already disagree with a bunch of their other opinions. Should only really care about the reviewers who has proven to share your opinion in the end, and user scores (though I prefer IMdb for that, and they only really work a few days after release.)

Dec 4 - 11:23 AM

Zachary, you must be that type of person who immediately dislikes someone because of their taste in something. Just because you don't like Twilight, doesn't mean you need everyone to hate it with you.

I dread to think what you're like around girls.

Dec 4 - 01:35 PM