Tomatometer Watch: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

I agree with Jon here. The PJ encourages people try the 48 fps, so it SHOULD be a factor when the filmmaker intends it to be the definitive version of his film.

Dec 7 - 05:26 PM

Michael Lena

I mean, of course it should be mentioned, and the review can say whether its good or bad... but it still shouldn't really factor into the score of the FILM.

Dec 9 - 06:39 PM

Taylor Mefford

I also agree with Jon. He made a choice to shoot in 48 FPS and it should be a factor in how the movie is viewed. I for one, never liked the idea and don't think i'll see the 48 fps, or I may if I have the money to walk out in the middle of the presentation

Dec 7 - 05:32 PM

Gage Kent

Agree with Jon on this one.

Dec 7 - 07:07 PM

- Cochise -

I'm also on this bandwagon. 48fps is an artistic choice. Just because it has numbers in it, that doesn't mean that its some technical part that doesn't affect the aesthetics of the movie.

Dec 7 - 07:27 PM

Richard Giles

I agree that they should critique it as a bad artistic choice made by Jackson if they don't like the high-frame rate, however, I think that because it is also available in 24 fps, the reviews should be based on the film's merits in the format they are most comfortable seeing it in. I'd like to see reviews on the actual movie, and not complaining about a format that they do not even have to watch the movie in.

Dec 8 - 02:45 AM

James Caughel

Though not necessary, just wanted to throw in my two cents. A friend of mine often makes the point that it is worthwhile to see the film the way the director wanted us to. If film was shot in (not retrofitted to) IMax or 3D, I have to trust that this is the medium they thought best suited their vision (this is, after all, why we like widescreen over full, right. Likewise, if Jackson took a whole lot of extra initiative to shoot in the high frame-rate, it communicates that this is the way he thinks the film is best experienced.

Dec 8 - 11:11 PM

Very good point Jon, i have to agree with you as well. You can't just take what's a big part of a film and all of a sudden act like it does'nt exist, it does'nt work that way. For me i can't judge the quality of the film until i see it, and that should go for everyone else as well. I will be in the theater like many come Dec 14 to see it.

Dec 9 - 12:32 AM

George vulcoun

I don't know anymore... normally I'd say shut your pie hole, 48 frames is better, live with it. I mean, it is smoother, better quality. But I guess there's something to be said for that "cinema" or "dreamy" feel. Like it's something other than reality. People want to escape not emulate life.

Dec 9 - 03:04 PM

Marissa Evans

But in that case, you'd might as well be harping on Toy Story and Shrek for bad CGI. Do you judge Ten Commandments, Superman, or the 1933 version of King Kong for poor special effects? Of course not. The technology hasn't been perfected yet. But we like these films not for the medium by which the story's told, but for the story itself. As a highly-entertaining book, the Hobbit movie could be told in storyboard and I'd still give it a fresh rating. :)

Dec 9 - 04:03 PM

Raphael Ribeiro

So, the 24 fps version should have a different rating than the 48 fps

Dec 10 - 05:03 AM

Daniel Foster

agreed

Dec 8 - 08:17 AM

King Simba

All the negative reviews I've read have had other things to complain about than just the frame rate.

Dec 8 - 10:44 AM

Ezra Tross

Critics complaining about the frame rate and stupid crap like that are probly the same critics who were leading the charge on the Avatar Bandwagon. I'll take substance over aesthetically pleasing any day

Dec 9 - 09:02 PM

Joe Hughey

I'm sorry, but the visuals make a huge part of the film, especially a film like this, and if the visuals are mediocre, the experience will be less enjoyable. Duh.

Dec 10 - 10:49 AM

AJ DV

I agree. The rating should reflect the movie not the format since most people will see it the traditional way.

Dec 10 - 08:59 PM

Miguel Paredes

Delete any review who complained about the long of movie
i mean if you cant stand an almost 3 hour movie you have problems

Dec 7 - 03:08 PM

Owen Dittes

Especially if it's a prequel to the Lord of the Rings.

Dec 7 - 06:49 PM

King Simba

The runtime does matter. It's the director's job to know what proper runtime he should give to the story he wants to tell. I've seen films that were over 3 hours long where I never once felt bored and there have been films that were half as long where I kept checking my watch. For example, since this is Peter Jackson we're talking about, I was never bothered by the runtime of the LOTR films because they needed it, but although I liked King Kong, I thought it would have been better if the story hadn't been needlessly stretched out to 3 hours.

Dec 8 - 10:52 AM

Matthew Strehlow

LOL so many angry fanboys. If you look at the fresh reviews they are not exactly glowing reviews either. I mean has any critic given this movie a perfect score yet? TDKR had many perfect scores in the first batch of reviews and still got knocked down to 87%.

Dec 8 - 09:52 PM

Mikus Duncis

Actually... no. It's a valid complaint, though, not so much about how long it is, but about how it feels long. That's a pacing issue and is a valid complaint for any movie, especially for one they felt the need to split up in so many parts. If you' re gonna have 3 movies, then that means you have enough material for 3 movies and none of them need to feel dragged out and have pacing problems.

Dec 10 - 10:38 AM

Robert Hume

The run time is everything. Peter Jackson is out of control. Someone needs to strip his editing rights away. Less is more Peter, Less is more.

Dec 10 - 11:46 AM

Efrain Sanchez

The Fellowship of the Ring has 18 rotten reviews(from 18 Rotten people with no imagination) and 205 fresh reviews and its at 92%. The Hobbit is still 8 rotten and 20 Fresh I'm hoping it will go up because there are still many reviews to come good and bad.

Dec 7 - 04:30 PM

Adam Jones

Well we are still a week away, but I can't see this film getting to 80% if we already have this many negative reviews early on. Generally the pattern is that (with the exceptional of poor scoring movies) that negative reviews tend to increase over the opening weekend rather than decrease. Remember that Twilight Breaking Dawn Part 2 started fairly high but by the time the weekend was over it plummeted back to how the series does typically (at least the better ones).

I think its clear that this movie, if not the whole trilogy, will bee inferior to the original Lord of the Rings Trilogy to some degree, and I think the troubled production is a big part of why it's not doing as well as many of us would like.

Dec 7 - 05:20 PM

Words spoken by a man who knows what he's talking about. I don't think 80% on RT is quite out the question just yet, but if it's at 72%-75% when it gets to 80-100 reviews than 80% will definantly be out the question.

Dec 9 - 12:39 AM

Andrew Milito

Are people really demanding that reviews be deleted for having opinions they disagree with? Sheesh, this community makes me angry.

Dec 7 - 05:12 PM

Andrew Lee

I agree. If we always manipulated and twisted data to show a one sided view, it would be arguably worthless as a review site; it would be another commercial and unreliable for people seeking real unbiased input. Anyone interested in seeing what happens when you remove data (dissent of 48fps) can do so on their own without removing the source data that the rest of us might use.

Dec 7 - 06:36 PM

Andrew Milito

Ah, someone who agrees *sigh of relief*

Dec 8 - 04:29 PM

Janson Jinnistan

I think this review should be removed for sheer idiocy - "Tolkien could invent names and languages, but he couldn't create a plot at gunpoint." - James Rocchi.

The problem with the Tomatometer, is that people see numbers and get confused, and then proceed to discuss a film like its a sports team, or like pundits discussing polls rather than issues.

Dec 9 - 10:41 AM

Dani Fenn-Wells

I totally agree! I'm from New Zealand and this country is really milking the hobbit. We do depend a lot on a big movie like this, so I'm a bit gutted about the reviews but everyone should be allowed to have an opinion.

Dec 10 - 12:28 PM

Michael Lena

anticipation is unswayed. But why i noticed when it gets a "rotten" review it goes down about 3% and when it gets a "fresh" review it only goes up 1%. Why is this?

Dec 7 - 05:15 PM

Andrew Lee

Maybe because people would only tolerate seeing one bad movie for every three good ones, before they conclude the review site is unreliable?

Dec 7 - 06:40 PM

Hey RT staff, there seems to be a loading issue with the Hobbit forum. Might wanna check that out.

Dec 7 - 05:20 PM

They disabled it because of fanboy retardation

Dec 8 - 06:02 AM

Joshua Henderson

It's not just the forums. I have a problem when going to the all critics, top critics review pages as well. :/

Dec 8 - 07:50 AM

Hey RT, thanks for putting the Hobbit forums back up for us. May the Gods smile on you.

Dec 8 - 12:19 PM

Sam Mills

I really want to see it. It looks amazing, and I know it's just the first of a three-part series. Jackson should consider looking into adapting Legend of the Seeker into a film next!

Dec 7 - 05:55 PM

Christopher Kulik

Screw the HOBBIT, I'm more interested in the 100% rating that ZERO DARK THIRTY is holding onto.

Dec 7 - 06:24 PM

Marco Chaudry

You mean that sequel to Act of Valor? XD

Dec 7 - 09:06 PM

J�nas Haux

Yeah, compare a film made by a Oscar winning director with a one of the worst film of the year.

Dec 8 - 09:22 AM

Christopher Kulik

Thank you Jonas. In fact, speaking as a Navy vet I was absolutely offended by ACT OF VALOR, particularly how the SEALS were exploited by the Pentagon to make money for video game companies and the military industrial complex. Worst film of the year, by far, simply because of how offensively jingoistic it is.

Contrary to what Marco may think, I do have my reservations about ZERO DARK THIRTY, especially when you consider the current controversy that the writer and director were given special access by the Pentagon to so-called "confidential" file. I truly believe bin Laden has been dead for years, hence my reservations; that being said, I thought THE HURT LOCKER was hands down the Best Movie of 2009.

Dec 8 - 12:15 PM

Im so stoked for Jack Reacher! Who's with me!!?!!!!

Dec 8 - 12:34 PM

With 22 reviews in so far it's still very early for ZERO DARK THIRTY, but it would seem to have a very good shot at finishing over 90% on RT.

Dec 9 - 12:44 AM

Justin Buell

Critics, from time to time, are completely wrong.

Gladiator has a 78% score.

Just keep that in mind.

Dec 7 - 07:12 PM

Emma McClatchey

And Forrest Gump only has 71%. Tragedy.

Dec 7 - 07:35 PM

Chase Jarrell

Gladiator is great. Forrest Gump is awful. Mind that Kick-Ass, one of the best superhero films ever made, is rated at 76%

Dec 7 - 09:04 PM

Mark Angelini

Kick-Ass is certainly not one of the best superhero films ever made

Dec 8 - 08:22 AM

George vulcoun

Gladiator sucked. I never understood it's appeal. Morons fighting like animals, yes, real good. Forrest Gump is one of the most emotional films ever made. Beautiful and original. Kick-ass is another moronic film.

Dec 9 - 03:14 PM

Tallulah Robinson

^What George said.

Dec 9 - 07:27 PM

King Simba

How is 78% a bad score? In fact, since we're on topic I'm not sure why everyone is acting like reception for The Hobbit has been negative. Yeah they're below the level of LOTR, but then again that's the same for nearly all fantasy films. The Hobbit after all was a much lighter book, more like Chronicles of Narnia than LORT.

Dec 8 - 10:59 AM

It's not a bad score at all, in fact it's a very good score. I believe with the 3 LOTR films all scoring 90% plus on RT some people got spoiled off that and now think a score in the 70's or 80's is bad, which it's not.

Dec 9 - 12:50 AM

Wtg for referencing movies that are both timely and relevant. Wait no, those movies are old as shit. Your point is stupid.

Dec 8 - 12:35 PM

Jaho Koo

Gladiator is perfect at 78% - it's overrated.

Dec 8 - 11:47 PM

Peyton Gupton

Quick idea about the negative reviews resulting from FPS issues: Wouldn't reviews go up after opening weekend due to people being able to see it in 24FPS? It's my perception that most (if not all) critic screenings were shown in the new format.

Dec 7 - 07:52 PM

Chris Topher

The 48fps was gorgeous. Made Avatar look like VHS

Dec 7 - 08:00 PM

Jacob Austin

Like any other movie of this calibre, our minds want to draw immediate comparisons to its chronological predecessors. The Hobbit however is a different story, with a different motif, taking place at another time in the grandiose and rugged Middle Earth. I will be going into this film with a fresh perspective and an open mind.

Dec 7 - 08:34 PM

Alex Farr

I think expecting it, to be as good as Lord of the Rings is a mistake to begin with, at least in the grand scheme of things. they may both take place in Middle-Earth, but one is a 1,000 page epic where the entire realm of middle Earth is at stake. the other is a light heart-ed Children's book about, about finding courage and believing in one's self and their fellows. but there are both very good stories in their own rights, and Just because Hobbit isn't getting complete raves from critics doesn't mean it's not a good film.

Dec 7 - 09:38 PM

Hrannar Baldursson

The novel itself starts off really slow, and only picks up in pace when Bilbo meets Gollum. The reviews seem to reflect how I look at the novel, which is not a bad thing at all.

Dec 7 - 11:33 PM

Justin Buell

I only have a problem with the wording.

The Hobbit is NOT as epic, dark, or dramatically important as The Lord of the Rings.

This does not mean it's isn't as GOOD.

Dec 7 - 11:59 PM

Corinna Kauffman

If people haven't read the book, they probably will be surprised at how different it is from Lord of the Rings. But from what I'm seeing of the reviews, it looks like they hit spot on. The book starts out slow and builds speed. And like most trilogies, the first movie is a lot of laying groundwork. I'll be honest, any extra time we can spend in Middle Earth, I'll appreciate so I was excited he's making three.

Dec 8 - 03:56 AM

Word is he is working on new movies next to bridge the gap to fellowship. They will be 60 years of middle earth in real time. How awesome!!!

Dec 8 - 12:38 PM

EEERRRGGHHHHH YESSSSS MIDDLE EARTH

Dec 8 - 12:46 PM

Piotrek Dubrawski

WHAT? You want a bridge between Hobbit and LotR? Are you completly insane? Those movies are a visualization of the books as everyone knows and Tolkien didnt writte anything that would cover the time period between those two so Jackson would have to make up entirerly new bullshit story which first of all he isnt realy entitled to do so, second of all it would be horribly offensive to the memory of J.R.R Tolkien (it's like taking a giant sh.it on top of his grave) and third of all the real fans would never allow thing like this to happen or collectively boycott it if it was actualy made. There gonna be 2 next parts of the Hobbit to end the story and that's it.

Dec 9 - 03:20 PM

It was a joke, Piotrek.

Dec 10 - 12:56 AM

Very disappointed with the reviews foe The Hobbit. Ive been waiting all year to see this movie but reviews are making seem like this is going to be the new Phantom Menace. I was hoping that this movie would live up The Lord of The Rings triology and what is up with the 48fps, its going to make the movie look like one big set. If its not broke dont fix it.

Dec 8 - 01:49 AM

Cool, I love the Phantom Menace!

Dec 8 - 05:52 AM

I always had a soft spot for Jar Jar Binks.

Dec 8 - 10:44 AM

Mesa love Jar Jar

Dec 8 - 12:39 PM

Wesa go to gunga city, okieday?

Dec 8 - 12:43 PM

One does not simply walk into gunga city

Dec 8 - 05:11 PM

No, you're right. You swim!

Dec 8 - 08:33 PM

I was watching Rock Center with Bryan Williams the other night and they were interviewing Peter Jackson. The reporter asked him if he seen his movie yet and he said yes i seen for the 1st time yesterday. She then asked What do you think about it. He said quote "It was Okay". very disappointing.

Dec 8 - 02:00 AM

Bill Edmunds

He said that with an obvious twinkle in his eye, and didn't mention anything about the 'first half'. Do you really think he would bust on his own movie before it has even been released??? Let's be real.

Dec 8 - 11:45 AM

Shona Conroy

First of all The Hobbit is a childrens book if you expect it to be epic and doomy gloomy like LotR you have not read the book. Secondly if you don't like the idea of 48 FPS then see it as 24 FPS it's really that simple. Also for those who like to use the phrase "if it ain't broke don't fix it" should we apply that to technology as a whole? If that's the case put your dvd/blu ray player away and hunt down a VCR.

Dec 8 - 02:18 AM

Richard Giles

Agreed.

Dec 8 - 02:40 AM

While you think this is a realistic comparison it is a logical fallacy. You cannot compare the two. One is a difference in formats and the other a difference in frame rate. The 48fps and upward has been available for a long long time, artistically it's a choice that No filmmaker makes. There may be a reason for that apparently. Taking risks is good but sometimes those risks end in failure and one needs to accept that can happen.

Dec 8 - 05:55 AM

Jaho Koo

IB student right here..lol

Dec 8 - 11:42 PM

George vulcoun

obviously 48 fps is better quality. That's why "they chose it". Your mind is so used to 24 and it's associations with cinema and the "dreamy" feel. The only argument you can make is one in support of that look and feel. Maybe most people like to go to the movies to escape reality rather than watch it be emulated with an improved look/feel.

Dec 9 - 03:21 PM

Jaho Koo

Never thought children could read such difficult books...or is it because I'm Asian?

Dec 8 - 11:48 PM

Janson Jinnistan

Americans don't read at all. But seriously, I'd say that The Hobbit (which is easier than the other Rings books) is adequete for 8-12 year olds.

Dec 8 - 11:55 PM

well someone is pissed cuz a movie there looking forward to is getting bad reviews

Dec 8 - 02:44 AM

Daniel Foster

Not so much that were annoyed its just thier taking off for it being three hours and the frame rate.

Dec 8 - 08:16 AM

Bill Edmunds

72% is hardly a badly reviewed film.

Dec 8 - 11:46 AM

what other great books are there that should turned into movies?

Dec 8 - 03:04 AM

Nelson Verdejo

this still isnt gonna end anywhere near 90% regardless of criticism or no criticism of frame rate ... the critics biggest problems with this movie is that they feel it doesn't match the high standards set by the LOTR trilogy and falls flat compared to those ...this movie's tomatometer started out in the 70s ... not a bad start but still a bad start for fans of the original trilogy who were anticipating this ending up in the mid to high 90s percentile.

Dec 8 - 03:57 AM