Will The Hobbit end up "rotten"?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Down to 66%. This is gonna be close but it should hang on. Most of the reviews are in now.

The main reason for the ratings drop (from what I've read) is that the critics are bitching and moaning about how long this film is.. 

There's absolutely no rational reason for a Hobbit film to be nearly three hours long unless it covers the whole book and then some. I think it's a reasonable critique, even if the film is otherwise good. Whether or not this one is I don't know yet since I haven't been to see it.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Down to 66%. This is gonna be close but it should hang on. Most of the reviews are in now.

The main reason for the ratings drop (from what I've read) is that the critics are bitching and moaning about how long this film is.. 

There's plenty of movies that are fine being almost three hours long, one covering only one third of The Hobbit plus some additional material is not such of one. Nathan's point is pretty much it.

The Onion's take: http://www.theonion.com/articles/the-hobbit-to-feature-53minutelong-scene-of-bilbo,30727

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The film is an editing disaster.

Worse than the Return of the King film for that?

[Eraserhead]

Down to 64%. Getting close!

Also, the opening weekend wasn't all that impressive domestically. It did $84.6 million, which is a new record for December but the tracking for it actually had it at $120 million.

I know my theater was incredibly slow this weekend at least compared to what we were expecting (although I wonder how much of an impact the shooting may have had, we're only about 45 miles away from it).

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3587&p=.htm

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It'd take a deluge (no pun intended) of negative reviews to knock it below 60% now though. Still numbers are unimpressive for such an anticipated movie. Hell even The Phantom Menace got a "Fresh" on its original run with just above 60% (the pointless 3-D re-release resulted in more reviews which knocked it to "Rotten" finally.)

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/12/peter-jacksons-violent-betrayal-of-tolkien/266294/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This makes me want to skip the movie at least for now and go back to the book I haven't read in several years.  I can't imagine my favorite chapter (Riddles in the Dark) translates well into film anyways.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/12/peter-jacksons-violent-betrayal-of-tolkien/266294/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This makes me want to skip the movie at least for now and go back to the book I haven't read in several years.  I can't imagine my favorite chapter (Riddles in the Dark) translates well into film anyways.

I've heard that 'Riddles in the Dark' was one of the best parts of the film, and I'm interested to see how that could be.

Apart from that, more and more I think the best director for Tolkien would in fact have been Mizoguchi Kenji. A pity that couldn't possibly have worked, for a variety of mostly-obvious reasons. (The best director for Charles Williams is Dario Argento. Other Inklings I've never had occasion to give much thought to, except 'the BBC', as an institution, in general, for C.S. Lewis.)

[Jackson]

I thought the movie was good. It shouldn't be below 75%

A bunch of nerds are upset that the movie wasn't exactly like the book, as you can see from reading this thread.

[Eraserhead]

I thought the movie was good. It shouldn't be below 75%

A bunch of nerds are upset that the movie wasn't exactly like the book, as you can see from reading this thread.

That's not what's bugging most film critics about it though (after all The Two Towers is sitting at 96%). The critics that haven't liked it are mostly complaining about it being boring, repetitive and too long.

[memphis]

I thought the movie was good. It shouldn't be below 75%

A bunch of nerds are upset that the movie wasn't exactly like the book, as you can see from reading this thread.

That's not what's bugging most film critics about it though (after all The Two Towers is sitting at 96%). The critics that haven't liked it are mostly complaining about it being boring, repetitive and too long.

How does somebody who enjoyed The Two Towers find The Hobbit boring, repetitive, and too long?

[John Dibble]

Also, the opening weekend wasn't all that impressive domestically. It did $84.6 million, which is a new record for December but the tracking for it actually had it at $120 million.

The tracking may have underestimated the fact that many families will want wait to see it when they get together for Christmas vacation.

[Хahar 🤔]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The interminable fighting was exactly what made the Lord of the Rings movies unwatchable.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I saw it on Sunday, thought it was awesome. However, a bunch of the new material Jackson added, which I can only assume was apocryphal Tolkein material, seemed not to fit well into the story, at least not for a while. It seemed like a fourth of the movie was dedicated to foreshadowing for the return of Sauron, which as far as I recall had nothing to do with "The Hobbit". Nevertheless, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. May have to see it again sometime next week since a couple of friends couldn't make it and I only went with two.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The word I keep seeing in relation to this is ... "indulgent"...

[Eraserhead]

I thought the movie was good. It shouldn't be below 75%

A bunch of nerds are upset that the movie wasn't exactly like the book, as you can see from reading this thread.

That's not what's bugging most film critics about it though (after all The Two Towers is sitting at 96%). The critics that haven't liked it are mostly complaining about it being boring, repetitive and too long.

How does somebody who enjoyed The Two Towers find The Hobbit boring, repetitive, and too long?

Probably because The Hobbit is a shorter book than The Two Towers and yet it has been turned into a three movie series (compared to the one Two Towers film) bloated with all kinds of filler to pad out the runtimes and rake in that extra money.

[Frodo]

There's quite a disconnect going on between the critics and the audience in their perception of the movie.

65% of critics rated 'The Hobbit' highly, while around 80% of moviegoers liked it.  

[Gustaf]

The movie is crap because it rapes the book, but it also sucks as a stand-alone movie, disregarding the novel.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There's quite a disconnect going on between the critics and the audience in their perception of the movie.

65% of critics rated 'The Hobbit' highly, while around 80% of moviegoers liked it.  

A fair number of the moviegoers are likely fanboys who already know what the story is about, perhaps even in more detail than Jackson slathered onto the screen.  Thus they will be judging it on how well it brings the book to life for them.  Whereas even if they know and like the book, many critics are judging it as a standalone movie in its own right.

[afleitch]

Let's be honest. It's a good movie based on what is essentially a childrens book. It's better than the first two of the LoTR trilogy in terms of pacing and set pieces. It's funny and keeps moving without resorting to drawn out emotion shots that plagues the first Trilogy. Each of the 12 dwarves is given something to do and there's more character development in this sizeable cast than there are in most movies featuring a smaller ensemble including this years lauded Batman and The Avengers. It was a long movie, but it gave it space to breathe. The scene between Bilbo and Gollum was crafted beautifully on the strength of both Andy Serkis and Martin Freeman (who is a more versatile lead than Elijah Wood). Ian McKellan is given more to do than just laugh to himself and Sylvester McCoy is outstanding as Radagast. I hate Tolkein's world; always have. But I actually give a sh-t about what happens in the next two movies.

[Gustaf]

I saw it on Sunday, thought it was awesome. However, a bunch of the new material Jackson added, which I can only assume was apocryphal Tolkein material, seemed not to fit well into the story, at least not for a while. It seemed like a fourth of the movie was dedicated to foreshadowing for the return of Sauron, which as far as I recall had nothing to do with "The Hobbit". Nevertheless, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. May have to see it again sometime next week since a couple of friends couldn't make it and I only went with two.

Um, no. A lot of the new material is just made up stuff from nowhere. A little of it comes from other Tolkien sources though.

[Gustaf]

Let's be honest. It's a good movie based on what is essentially a childrens book. It's better than the first two of the LoTR trilogy in terms of pacing and set pieces. It's funny and keeps moving without resorting to drawn out emotion shots that plagues the first Trilogy. Each of the 12 dwarves is given something to do and there's more character development in this sizeable cast than there are in most movies featuring a smaller ensemble including this years lauded Batman and The Avengers. It was a long movie, but it gave it space to breathe. The scene between Bilbo and Gollum was crafted beautifully on the strength of both Andy Serkis and Martin Freeman (who is a more versatile lead than Elijah Wood). Ian McKellan is given more to do than just laugh to himself and Sylvester McCoy is outstanding as Radagast. I hate Tolkein's world; always have. But I actually give a sh-t about what happens in the next two movies.

Wow, what? You need to see better movies.

[minionofmidas]

I hate Tolkein's world; always have.

Yes. Jackson movies are for people who love the Fantasy genre in general but hate Tolkien's world and always have.

[afleitch]

I hate Tolkein's world; always have.

Yes. Jackson movies are for people who love the Fantasy genre in general but hate Tolkien's world and always have.

I always found Tolkien fairly banal. 'Depth' doesn't necessarily mean good. He farmed just about every Celtic, old Anglo-Saxon and Norse myth he could get his hands on and then framed the fantasy genre so that his ideal became the standard. The fantasy genre was just as prolific 'Pre-Tolkien' and the fact it's been lost a little is a great shame; T.H White, Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast, Fritz Leiber etc. Tolkien's imagery was influenced from Stevenson, Victorian fairy 'paintings' and the arts and crafts movement. Film makers have every right to take what Tolkien wrote, given that there was nothing particularly new or unique about it and splash it about on screen. You can't be a purist about Tolkien because there's nothing pure about it to begin with.

[minionofmidas]

I meant the postTolkienian D&Dish fantasy stuff, of course, not all fantastic literature in the original sense.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

afleitch, if your definition of literary purity is related to perceived originality then it's not really meaningful. Peake, whom I love perhaps more than Tolkien, mined Dickens, penny-dreadfuls, nursery rhymes, and his experiences in China and on Sark. Leiber had strong Jungian influence and liked Lovecraft and Robert Graves. White, uh...yeah. The Tolkienian mythological- and Arts and Crafts-based outlook did triumph over these in some ways, at the expense of some diversity in the genre (or genera), and any of us are perfectly free to have preferences, but the idea that these other, mostly subjugated styles of fantasy were 'more original' is a little questionable. And any of these can be banalized and dumbed-down. Somebody who hated Peake could say exactly what you're saying in defense of the Gormenghast miniseries.