If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Deadline)   It's official: The Hobbit is the biggest Christmas movie of all time, taking the top spot at the box office and keeping Skyfall at #2 and knocking Twilight out of the top five   (deadline.com) divider line 172
    More: Followup, highest-grossing films, The Hobbit, Saturday morning, pipes, 4TH UPDATE, A' CinemaScore, Pedro Almodovar, Bates Motel  
•       •       •

1780 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 16 Dec 2012 at 1:35 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



172 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-16 11:05:42 AM
It was good. I saw it in 2D, 24 fps. I want to go ahead and see the new higher frame rate.
 
2012-12-16 12:10:13 PM
I love watching people trying to convince themselves (and others) that it was better than it was. Come on people, it's okay to admit you were disappointing. 65% on Rotten Tomatoes tells you all you need to know.
 
2012-12-16 12:11:23 PM
I was bored to death. I'd rather watch paint dry than watch it again
 
2012-12-16 12:11:30 PM
disappointed
 
2012-12-16 12:13:38 PM

gonzoduke: I was bored to death. I'd rather watch paint dry than watch it again


So par for the course for a Lord of the Rings movie.
 
2012-12-16 12:21:58 PM
I'll wait for the five hour director's cut on Blu-Ray.
 
2012-12-16 12:31:15 PM
I saw in in HFR 3D and enjoyed it thoroughly. Worth noting, I am a long time Tolkein head, so I was eating up mentions of Ungoliant and all like candy.
 
2012-12-16 12:42:28 PM
That's a lot of walking.
 
2012-12-16 12:53:39 PM
It's been a while since I've read The Hobbit, but I just don't see how you get 3 movies, which will probably total close to 9 hours of screen time once all is said and done, out of it. You're going to have to do some serious padding (and it does sound like they're throwing in material from other Tolkien writing) to fill that.

1 3 hour movie, or maybe 2 2 hour movies, would have been far better.
 
2012-12-16 12:56:03 PM

jake_lex: You're going to have to do some serious padding


That's what Peter Jackson does. Did you notice how farking long it took for King Kong to die?
 
2012-12-16 12:59:52 PM

Popcorn Johnny: I love watching people trying to convince themselves (and others) that it was better than it was. Come on people, it's okay to admit you were disappointing. 65% on Rotten Tomatoes tells you all you need to know.


That doesn't mean anything. That might just mean 2 out of 3 people thought it was brilliant and one thought it stunk. The RT doesn't tell you about the mean score, just the median.
 
2012-12-16 01:05:15 PM

DamnYankees: That doesn't mean anything. That might just mean 2 out of 3 people thought it was brilliant and one thought it stunk. The RT doesn't tell you about the mean score, just the median.


Fellowship - 92%
Two Towers - 96%
Return of the King - 94%
Hobbit - 65%

Yeah, the tomatometer doesn't mean anything.
 
2012-12-16 01:07:30 PM

Popcorn Johnny: DamnYankees: That doesn't mean anything. That might just mean 2 out of 3 people thought it was brilliant and one thought it stunk. The RT doesn't tell you about the mean score, just the median.

Fellowship - 92%
Two Towers - 96%
Return of the King - 94%
Hobbit - 65%

Yeah, the tomatometer doesn't mean anything.


The Hobbit clearly isn't as good as the other three, but I honestly think 65% is way too low. 80% sounds about right to me. I do think its suffering by comparison.
 
2012-12-16 01:12:33 PM
I didn't realize the movie is a Christmas movie.

Just because there are elves and a guy with a beard doesn't mean it is a Christmas movie.
 
2012-12-16 01:17:53 PM

DamnYankees: It was good. I saw it in 2D, 24 fps. I want to go ahead and see the new higher frame rate.


Came here to post this word for word. Get out of my head foul demon!
 
2012-12-16 01:35:01 PM

Popcorn Johnny: DamnYankees: That doesn't mean anything. That might just mean 2 out of 3 people thought it was brilliant and one thought it stunk. The RT doesn't tell you about the mean score, just the median.

Fellowship - 92%
Two Towers - 96%
Return of the King - 94%
Hobbit - 65%

Yeah, the tomatometer doesn't mean anything.


It was an ok movie. The other movies were better, but this was decent. My main problem was it was too long. Could've cut an hour out of it easy.
 
2012-12-16 01:43:18 PM
I thought it was amazing and it could have been 6 hours and I would still feel the same way.
 
2012-12-16 01:44:18 PM
It was a really well made film.

King kong a complete piece of shiat movie got 80%.

Reviewers came out early thinking it was shiat and were wrong. fans of the series can see what he is doing and he did a good job.

The top critics have it at 43% rotten.

The audiences love it.
 
2012-12-16 01:51:42 PM

Popcorn Johnny: DamnYankees: That doesn't mean anything. That might just mean 2 out of 3 people thought it was brilliant and one thought it stunk. The RT doesn't tell you about the mean score, just the median.

Fellowship - 92%
Two Towers - 96%
Return of the King - 94%
Hobbit - 65%

Yeah, the tomatometer doesn't mean anything.



King kong at 80% fresh. Yeah I think the tomatometer is retarded.
 
2012-12-16 01:59:57 PM
didnt fellowship start with a 74% fresh when it first came out?
 
2012-12-16 02:04:44 PM

graggor: King kong at 80% fresh. Yeah I think the tomatometer is retarded.


I didn't think King Kong was terrible but like everything else Peter Jackson's done since LOTR, it needed an editor. The irony being that 006's death scene in Fellowship and Kong's death scene dragged on for what seemed like hours but Sauroman's death scene wound up on the cutting room floor.
 
2012-12-16 02:06:38 PM

Mugato: graggor: King kong at 80% fresh. Yeah I think the tomatometer is retarded.

I didn't think King Kong was terrible but like everything else Peter Jackson's done since LOTR, it needed an editor. The irony being that 006's death scene in Fellowship and Kong's death scene dragged on for what seemed like hours but Sauroman's death scene wound up on the cutting room floor.


Boromir's death scene is one of the best in cinema history. How dare you besmirch it.
 
2012-12-16 02:06:44 PM

Mugato: graggor: King kong at 80% fresh. Yeah I think the tomatometer is retarded.

I didn't think King Kong was terrible but like everything else Peter Jackson's done since LOTR, it needed an editor. The irony being that 006's death scene in Fellowship and Kong's death scene dragged on for what seemed like hours but Sauroman's death scene wound up on the cutting room floor.

Took forever had no story and just went on and on with boring boring boring story.

Terrible.

The hobbit was paced well and was balanced between information and action.
 
2012-12-16 02:06:48 PM
Metascore:

Fellowship- 92
Two Towers - 88
ROTK - 94
Hobbit - 58
 
2012-12-16 02:09:09 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Metascore:

Fellowship- 92
Two Towers - 88
ROTK - 94
Hobbit - 58


do you have your own opinion of the movie?
 
2012-12-16 02:10:58 PM

graggor: Popcorn Johnny: Metascore:

Fellowship- 92
Two Towers - 88
ROTK - 94
Hobbit - 58

do you have your own opinion of the movie?


Oh, no, he hasn't seen it. He just likes being told what to like. Also, this movie has been out for days, and those for years. It's basically the same, right?
 
2012-12-16 02:12:14 PM

graggor: do you have your own opinion of the movie?


Yes, it sucked. Aside from a few cool scenes, it was a colossal bore.
 
2012-12-16 02:12:35 PM

DamnYankees: Mugato: graggor: King kong at 80% fresh. Yeah I think the tomatometer is retarded.

I didn't think King Kong was terrible but like everything else Peter Jackson's done since LOTR, it needed an editor. The irony being that 006's death scene in Fellowship and Kong's death scene dragged on for what seemed like hours but Sauroman's death scene wound up on the cutting room floor.

Boromir's death scene is one of the best in cinema history. How dare you besmirch it.


Ok, fair enough. It's a highly regarded film so it's probably me.

/Jackson still needs an editor
//I'm Avid certified Pete, call me
 
2012-12-16 02:13:06 PM
We saw it on Friday, and while I liked the movie, it really was too similar to the Fellowship of the Ring in editing and filming for me to say it was great. The whole movie I kept seeing scenes and comments that came right out of FotR, and the pacing and plot was way too similar as well. Had Jackson made The Hobbit first, I think the overall approval rating of the movie would be a lot higher, but I think most people are doing some comparison between it and the LotR movies.
 
2012-12-16 02:14:41 PM
 
2012-12-16 02:15:10 PM

graggor: Popcorn Johnny: Metascore:

Fellowship- 92
Two Towers - 88
ROTK - 94
Hobbit - 58

do you have your own opinion of the movie?


No. He believes what he reads on the internet.
 
2012-12-16 02:15:13 PM
Fellowship---8.8 user score
Two Towers--9.0 user score
Return of the King--8.9 user score

Hobbit--8.5 user score...dear lord.
 
2012-12-16 02:15:58 PM

Popcorn Johnny: graggor: do you have your own opinion of the movie?

Yes, it sucked. Aside from a few cool scenes, it was a colossal bore.


It was anything but boring.
 
2012-12-16 02:17:07 PM
Fight club has a metacritic of 66...must be a terrible movie.
 
2012-12-16 02:18:22 PM
I hated it. There wasn't even one car chase, and none of the chicks got their tits out!
 
2012-12-16 02:18:55 PM

derpy: graggor: Popcorn Johnny: Metascore:

Fellowship- 92
Two Towers - 88
ROTK - 94
Hobbit - 58

do you have your own opinion of the movie?

No. He believes what he reads on the internet.


I see. So a troll.
 
2012-12-16 02:24:28 PM
Tolkien fanboy here, I completely understand the criticism of the slow pacing and length of the movie. I managed to convince my wife, who doesn't like LotR, to see it with me, and while she thought the action was good and the comic relief moments good as well, overall she thought it was excessively long and often boring. Personally, I freakin loved it, as all of the background material really interests me and I really could care less how long it ended up being.
 
2012-12-16 02:25:49 PM

graggor: Popcorn Johnny: graggor: do you have your own opinion of the movie?

Yes, it sucked. Aside from a few cool scenes, it was a colossal bore.

It was anything but boring.


To be fair, he's really into Michael Bay movies.

/The Hobbit isn't an action-packed story
//bound to bore people who prefer action
 
2012-12-16 02:25:54 PM

AntonChigger: Personally, I freakin loved it, as all of the background material really interests me and I really could care less how long it ended up being.


this is basically how I feel, as someone who has never even read the books. When all is said and done, you're gonna have 6 discs on your shelf of movies which show this world. I want as much nook and cranny as they will give me.
 
2012-12-16 02:26:26 PM

AntonChigger: Tolkien fanboy here, I completely understand the criticism of the slow pacing and length of the movie. I managed to convince my wife, who doesn't like LotR, to see it with me, and while she thought the action was good and the comic relief moments good as well, overall she thought it was excessively long and often boring. Personally, I freakin loved it, as all of the background material really interests me and I really could care less how long it ended up being.


the pacing was excellent.
 
2012-12-16 02:27:14 PM

Kuroshin: graggor: Popcorn Johnny: graggor: do you have your own opinion of the movie?

Yes, it sucked. Aside from a few cool scenes, it was a colossal bore.

It was anything but boring.

To be fair, he's really into Michael Bay movies.

/The Hobbit isn't an action-packed story
//bound to bore people who prefer action


there was a lot of action in the movie.
 
2012-12-16 02:33:08 PM

Popcorn Johnny: I love watching people trying to convince themselves (and others) that it was better than it was. Come on people, it's okay to admit you were disappointing. 65% on Rotten Tomatoes tells you all you need to know.


I hate to break this to you, but 65 percent means its a good movie. That's what rated fresh means.
 
2012-12-16 02:33:35 PM
The proof will be in the aftermath, anyway, and not even the weeks ahead. We'll see if general audiences (and not Tolkeinheads) are prepared to do this not just one more time, but twice.
 
2012-12-16 02:34:10 PM

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: The proof will be in the aftermath, anyway, and not even the weeks ahead. We'll see if general audiences (and not Tolkeinheads) are prepared to do this not just one more time, but twice.


I think the LOTR movies proved pretty conclusively they are.
 
2012-12-16 02:36:19 PM

TheManofPA: Popcorn Johnny: I love watching people trying to convince themselves (and others) that it was better than it was. Come on people, it's okay to admit you were disappointing. 65% on Rotten Tomatoes tells you all you need to know.

I hate to break this to you, but 65 percent means its a good movie. That's what rated fresh means.



80% fresh by the critics of king kong.

King kong meanwhile had 52% of the audience think it was ok.

81% of the audience likes the hobbit.

65% of the critics.

Audience are going to push that up.
 
2012-12-16 02:37:21 PM

jake_lex: It's been a while since I've read The Hobbit, but I just don't see how you get 3 movies, which will probably total close to 9 hours of screen time once all is said and done, out of it. You're going to have to do some serious padding (and it does sound like they're throwing in material from other Tolkien writing) to fill that.

1 3 hour movie, or maybe 2 2 hour movies, would have been far better.


Jackson is tying it to the LoTR movies/books, so, yep, there was padding and is going to be even more. And considering how Tolkien was very brief in his writing when it comes to the action scenes, (huge battles are wrote in a couple of paragraphs) there is plenty to flesh out.

Personally, I didn't find it drawn out and/or boring. The moment the end credits came up I immediately wanted to see it again.

And, God, New Zealand is gorgeous.
 
2012-12-16 02:38:08 PM

Mugato: graggor: King kong at 80% fresh. Yeah I think the tomatometer is retarded.

I didn't think King Kong was terrible but like everything else Peter Jackson's done since LOTR, it needed an editor. The irony being that 006's death scene in Fellowship and Kong's death scene dragged on for what seemed like hours but Sauroman's death scene wound up on the cutting room floor.


I read where King Kong was one of Peter Jackson's favorite movies, so I was excited to see what he'd do with material he loved so much. Great special effects, painstaking recreation of Depression era NewYork, some nifty nods to the original ( the scene FNL's coach is practicing with Noami Watts on the ship is right out of the original, the music and outfits the 'natives' are wearing at the Kong unveiling show in NewYork are right out of the original)
But.......



The 1933 original Kong is something like 100 minutes long and it's a fantastic movie. There's no way a King Kong movie that's twice as long should have one third of many Kong versus dinosaurs fights-even if the one in Jackson's was some wild three on one circus acrobat deal.
Besides the ponderous length, the three problems I have with Jackson's Kong were the Brontosaurus stampede scene, having Stumpy the Cook deliver the Skull Island History speech and how Jackson took the crazy badass that was Carl Denham in the original and turned him into Jack Black's check-bouncing used car salesmen.
 
2012-12-16 02:43:16 PM

Your_Huckleberry: Mugato: graggor: King kong at 80% fresh. Yeah I think the tomatometer is retarded.

I didn't think King Kong was terrible but like everything else Peter Jackson's done since LOTR, it needed an editor. The irony being that 006's death scene in Fellowship and Kong's death scene dragged on for what seemed like hours but Sauroman's death scene wound up on the cutting room floor.

I read where King Kong was one of Peter Jackson's favorite movies, so I was excited to see what he'd do with material he loved so much. Great special effects, painstaking recreation of Depression era NewYork, some nifty nods to the original ( the scene FNL's coach is practicing with Noami Watts on the ship is right out of the original, the music and outfits the 'natives' are wearing at the Kong unveiling show in NewYork are right out of the original)
But.......



The 1933 original Kong is something like 100 minutes long and it's a fantastic movie. There's no way a King Kong movie that's twice as long should have one third of many Kong versus dinosaurs fights-even if the one in Jackson's was some wild three on one circus acrobat deal.
Besides the ponderous length, the three problems I have with Jackson's Kong were the Brontosaurus stampede scene, having Stumpy the Cook deliver the Skull Island History speech and how Jackson took the crazy badass that was Carl Denham in the original and turned him into Jack Black's check-bouncing used car salesmen.


It was boring and paced so slowly. it was an atrocity.
 
2012-12-16 02:51:57 PM
Saw it last night, and I suppose here is as good a place as any to post my thoughts, Spoilers, obviously.

I'm a huge Tolkien nerd and have been looking forward to this for a long time, and frankly, I loved it. I really, thoroughly enjoyed this movie. That said, it dragged in more than a few places, and I was really stumped by some of the choices Jackson made. I can see how non fans (or even fans less tolerant than I) could be annoyed by it.

First, the prologue that showed the kingdom under the mountain I thought was brilliant. Ever since I read Lord of the Rings I've always tried to imagine what the great Dwarf kingdoms looked like, and I think Jackson really nailed it here. Everything was beautiful and I was taken completely by surprise. I loved the prologue in Fellowship and I think this easily topped it. The shot of Thranduil's army on the ridge reminded me of a similar shot in Kurosawa's Ran.

The opening with Frodo and old Bilbo I thought was pretty neat.

In the scene with the trolls, I would have preferred they stuck closer to the book, but I don't think it was terrible.

The battle at the gates of Moria I think was handled well. I don't remember Azog being there but I could be wrong? One thing I loved about this was they played up the tragic aspect, that the Dwarves won but at horrible cost. This is a theme that Tolkien repeats often but I feel that in the previous films it has been glossed over just a bit.

The scenes in Rivendell with the white council I thought was brilliant. I loved how Galadriel and Gandalf spoke to each other behind Saruman's back. If I recall correctly, she said at the very end of RotK that her choice for leader of the council was Gandalf over Saruman. I'm really looking forward to Saruman's scenes in the next two films, I wonder how much they will show of what he knows and why he finally decided to go after the Necromancer.

The rock giants were.... really Jackson, you REALLY thought that was a good idea?

Goblin king was meh. Sounded odd when he spoke, and the whole chase sequence when they were escaping was preposterously over the top, and I think it could have been edited down a lot.

The part where Bilbo encounters Gollum and the riddle game were handled perfectly, just perfectly. Not all of the riddles from the book were there, which is a tad surprising considering the extra padding other sequences got, but enough of them were to make the scene good, I think.

The sequence where they are chased up the trees was too long and overwrought, I think. I know in the book it was very short and simple, but come on. By then I knew the end of the movie was near and I honestly wanted it to wrap up faster, and I am someone who thinks people who complain about "multiple endings" in Return of the King are idiots.

The shot of the lonely mountain in the distance was beautiful.

Overall, I thought it was fantastic. Jackson, as always, could benefit from some editing down but overall I was very happy with what I saw. My wife, who is not a Lord of the Rings fan, went with me and she enjoyed it a lot too. The worst part of the movie is the fact I have to wait a whole goddam year to see the next installment.
 
2012-12-16 02:54:01 PM

miniflea: First, the prologue that showed the kingdom under the mountain I thought was brilliant. Ever since I read Lord of the Rings I've always tried to imagine what the great Dwarf kingdoms looked like, and I think Jackson really nailed it here. Everything was beautiful and I was taken completely by surprise. I loved the prologue in Fellowship and I think this easily topped it. The shot of Thranduil's army on the ridge reminded me of a similar shot in Kurosawa's Ran.


I agree. The opening was genius. The nerd in my totally though "it's like Orzammar made into real life".

/obscure?
 
Displayed 50 of 172 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report