Very Crowded Memorial Weekend Kick-Off: ‘Hangover … 
ABC, NBC & Fox Go To DC Court Against Alki … 
Specialty B.O. Preview: ‘Before Midnight’, … 
2012-2013 Season Network Rankings: CBS Sweeps In Final … 
Full 2012-2013 TV Season Series Rankings 
TOLDJA! Paramount Pocketing $190M From Disney For Marvel … 
‘Good Morning America’ Hits 19-Year Viewership … 
MGM Buys ‘Modern Family’ Producer Ben … 
‘Fashion Police’ Writers Chant On Picket Lines: … 
Universal Makes Seven-Figure Deal For ‘The School For … 
Steven Soderbergh Will Interrupt Retirement To Direct And … 
Cannes: EOne Announces Itself As Player In U.S. … 
Will LIN TV Stations Go Dark On Time Warner Cable? 
Shareholders Quiz Time Warner Chief On Political Ties And … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Modern Family’, ‘Law … 
Hammond On Cannes: Paramount’s ‘Nebraska’ … 
Cannes: J.C. Chandor Sets Next Project ‘A Most … 
Hannibal Classics Sets Cast For Nic Cage Pic … 
Hammond On Cannes: Robert Redford’s Brave New Role … 
Hot Trailer: Jennifer Aniston And Jason Sudeikis’ … 
Brad Pitt’s Plan B Banner Promotes Jeremy Kleiner To … 
SUNDAY 11 AM, 8TH UPDATE: Hollywood now has high hopes for this all-important holiday box office after this journey to Middle Earth is the largest Christmas release of all time. Rival studios knew Peter Jackson‘s film adaptation of the 1937 JRR Tolkien novel would be a monster hit so left this weekend alone. Warner Bros says The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey internationally opened to $138.2M in its first 5 days for 15M admissions in 56 markets from 18,200 screens. Domestically it earned $84.7M from 4,045 theaters. That makes for a gargantuan worldwide total of $223M, including a December record of $15M from IMAX screens. Pic opened in U.S./Canada to $37.5M Friday and $28.1M Saturday and an estimated $19.1M Sunday for an $84.7M weekend with an ‘A’ CinemaScore from audiences. There are 
two records shattered – biggest December Friday and biggest December weekend for the domestic box office. The debut for the 3D actioner from MGM/Warner Bros in 4,045 theaters is grossing much larger than The Lord Of The Rings trilogy. Friday’s take included a record $13M from 3,100 midnight shows, counting $1.6M on IMAX screens. Matinee trends had the pic on a $113+M fast track for its first U.S.-Canada weekend. But then its business slowed Friday evening no doubt because of its very long 2 hour, 46 minute running time. Exit polling of the audience showed that males made up 57%/females 43%, and that under 25 years old were 42%/over 25 yrs old 58%/under 18 years old 20%.
The Hobbit was digitally re-mastered into IMAX 3D format and a select number of IMAX theatres will be presenting the pic using a higher frame rate (HFR) – presenting the picture in 48 frames per second (fps) which is closer to what the human eye actually sees. This is twice the rate of the standard 24 fps, which is the current format in cinemas worldwide. This use of HFR 3D is the first in a major motion picture release. Domestically, IMAX (included in the overall total) comprised $10.1M from 326 locations. As for market share, 3D made up 49% and 2D was 51%. IMAX logged multiple sellouts across North America. In fact, The Hobbit‘s top 10 North American locations were all IMAX runs.
It’s already the #1 movie internationally since opening Wednesday. Warner Bros says 3D screens represented 60% of the total box office. The Hobbit broke an IMAX December record, grossing $5M in 126 IMAX overseas locations for a hefty per screen average of $40K. (December records were set in Brazil, Spain, Singapore, Turkey, Ukraine and the UK.) IMAX HFR locations generated $44K per screen domestically and $57K per screen overseas. Country by country, Warner Bros says The Hobbit opened to: UK – £11.4M (US$18.3M) taking 62% of the market share with 3D projection 60%; Germany - €12.6M (US$16.3M) including previews, representing a 60% share with 3D taking 80%; France - €9.8M (US$12.7M) taking 63% of the top 5 films with 3D projection 60%; Korea debuted to KRW9.2B (US$8.5M); Spain €6.5M (US$8.4M); Sweden SEK39.6M (US$6.0M); Italy €4.2M (US$5.4M); Mexico Ps66M (US$5.2M); Brazil R$10.1M (US$4.9M). My insiders thought it was very possible for the movie to end this weekend with approximately $200M worldwide but it did way more. Yowza!
In the U.S. and Canada, MovieTickets said box office advance tickets for the pic accounted for nearly 91% of sales going into Friday, with nearly 18% coming from those wanting to see the film in standard 3D format, 8% in High Frame Rate 3D, and 7% in IMAX 3D. The record opening for this weekend is I Am Legend‘s $77m. Remember, all Lords Of The Rings 2D films opened Christmas Week whereas 3D The Hobbit will play to lower openings but huge multiples helped by 3D and IMAX. The Hobbit An Unexpected Journey‘s production was managed by New Line Cinema with parent company Warner Bros Pictures handling worldwide theatrical distribution. Select international territories (including Scandinavia) as well as all international television distribution was handled by MGM.
In North America, the film is playing in 4,045 theaters, a record number for December. That includes 3,160 3D theaters and 461 theaters in the 48 frames-per-second format. Overseas, The Hobbit is opening in 55 territories on approximately 17,000 screens this weekend (excluding Australia, China and Russia). The pic scored a record opening in New Zealand where it was filmed and which is Jackson’s native country, marking the biggest non-holiday debut for a Wednesday.
Warner Bros, which specializes in tentpoles, crafted an event-level marketing campaign that simultaneously had to satisfy Tolkien’s Hobbit and Jackson’s Lord Of The Rings fans but also ignite new ones. ”We were fortunate to have in Peter Jackson a director who had both a unique vision for this broad movie marketed to everyone and a sustained relationship with his singular fan base,” the studios told me. To aid that, The Hobbit included many familiar faces among the cast and filmmakers from the original trilogy: Ian McKellen returns as Gandalf the Grey, Cate Blanchett as Galadriel, Ian Holm as Old Bilbo, Christopher Lee as Saruman, Hugo Weaving as Elrond, Elijah Wood as Frodo, and Andy Serkis as Gollum. Martin Freeman plays the central role of Bilbo Baggins, with Richard Armitage as Thorin Oakenshield.
The screenplay was by Fran Walsh & Philippa Boyens & Peter Jackson & Guillermo del Toro based on the Tolkien novel. Jackson and Walsh also produced the film, together with Carolynne Cunningham and Zane Weiner. The executive producers are former Warner Bros film topper Alan Horn, and New Line chief Toby Emmerich, as well as Jackson’s longtime manager and producing partner Ken Kamins and Carolyn Blackwood. Also pivotal was Jackson’s Weta Digital, the five-time Academy Award- winning visual effects facility based in Wellington, New Zealand, as well as Weta Workship for physical effects.
The marketing campaign began back in 2011 on Facebook with a series of video journals from Jackson’s POV, engaging fans throughout the year by taking them into the production activity leading up to the announcement trailer at the beginning of 2012. Jackson also marked milestones like Hobbit Day and the novel’s 75th anniversary. Publicity included the first ever film-themed Rolling Stone standalone issue and a week of television programming on The Colbert Report. The Hobbit also received major treatment from Fall and Holiday previews. An online media blitz kicked off in early November with an advanced ticketing campaign across YouTube, Facebook and Twitter to drive early ticket sales. Warner Bros live-streamed the world premiere from Wellington, New Zealand, to a record-setting audience of a million views.
DreamWorks/Fox/Disney’s Lincoln passed the $100M mark domestically on Thursday, 34 days from its initial exclusive release in 11 theaters on November 9th. Total moviegoing this weekend was $137M, which is +15.9% over last year.
Here’s the Top Ten based on weekend estimates:
1. The Hobbit: Unexpected Journey (MGM/WB) NEW [Runs 4,045] PG13
Friday $37.5M, Saturday $28.1M, Weekend $84.7M
2. Rise Of The Guardian (DWA/Par) Week 4 [Runs 3,387] PG
Friday $1.5M, Saturday $3.4M, Weekend $7.4M, Cume $71.3M
3. Lincoln (DreamWorks/Fox/Disney) Week 6 [Runs 2,285] PG13
Friday $1.9M, Saturday $3.2M, Weekend $7.2M, Cume $107.9M
4. Skyfall (Eon/MGM/Sony) Week 6 [Runs 2,924] PG13
Friday $1.8M, Saturday $3.0M, Weekend $7.0M, Cume $272.3M
5. Life Of Pi (Fox) Week 4 [Runs 2,548] PG
Friday $1.3M, Saturday $2.3M, Weekend $5.4M, Cume $69.5M
6. Breaking Dawn Part 2 (Summit/Lionsgate) Week 5 [Runs 3,042] PG13
Friday $1.4M, Saturday $2.2M, Weekend $5.1M, Cume $276.8M
7. Wreck-It Ralph (Disney) Week 7 [Runs 2,249]PG
Friday $702K, Saturday $1.5M, Weekend $3.2M, Cume $168.7M
8. Playing For Keeps (Millenium/FilmDistrict) Week 2 [Runs 2,840] PG13
Friday $1.0K, Saturday $1.3M, Weekend $3.2M (-44), Cume $10.8
9. Red Dawn (MGM/FilmDistrict) Week 4 [Runs 2,250] PG13
Friday $698K, Saturday $1.0, Weekend $2.3, Cume $40.8
10. Silver Linings Playbook (Weinstein) Week 5 [Runs 371] R
Friday $588K, Saturday $935K, Weekend $2.0M, Cume $17.0M
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ...
It’s a shame the critics don’t appreciate The Hobbit, I completely got lost in it, wonderful film.
Same with me. It was great returning to Middle Earth! I even liked the slow pace of the film; I didn’t want the movie to ever end. I watched it in 2-D and really enjoyed it. There have been times I’ve regretted going to see a movie in theaters, but “The Hobbit” was not one of them. I was left wanting more — and that’s quite the accomplishment, considering the ridiculously long runtime.
@Chris—Never listen to the critics, they don’t really know what they are talking about.
Saw this ponderous, tedious, plodding behemoth the other night. So disappointed. Whilst I’m not the demographic, which is no doubt primarily male (I’m not), it’s disappointing as I loved the LOTR films. This doesn’t have the same engagement, it certainly doesn’t have the same cross over and it doesn’t have the same charm as it’s predecessor’s. There’s little to no character development and precious few scenes you can connect to emotionally, leading to little involvement or caring for what’s happening on the screen.
And – literally one woman, albeit the fabulous Cate, in the entire film. I am sure this is true to the book, but seriously? Is Middle Earth populated by divine conception?
Enjoyed Richard Armitage as King of the Dwarves; the scenes with the elves were a welcome relief to the tedium of the rest of the ugliness that you have to bear throughout.
However, I did ask a friend (male) who is a big LOTR fan and he loved it.
So – it will do well but as wait and see queries: will it sink or float. I believe it will start sinking, and fast.
Anything and everything ARMITAGE. OMG that man is a keeper.
Couldn’t agree more with this review. Loved LOTR, but this was tedious, dull, and the 48fps 3-D looked terrible.
I couldn’t agree more with you and the OP. I had to fight to stay awake though Hobbit, and at the end I wish I had just allowed myself to sleep. It was a terminally boring letdown.
One of the most boring movies I’ve ever seen.
It is well known that there no female characters through out the hobbit, which is why they have invented the character of tauriel played by evangeline lily. Not too sure why the number of female characters affects whether a storyline is good or bad though?
The book has zero women. So does Lawrence of Arabia.
It’s true, Lord of the Rings and it’s related stories like the Hobbit are essentially the story of an ancient fictional war. Just like reading real history like the Persian Wars, or the Crusades, or even World War Two, there are few women characters. It is not intended to be disrespectful or dismissive to women at all. It’s just the way the world is.
Weird analogy. Real wars don’t have characters.
Real wars certainly do have characters. Are you on drugs?
Stories of real wars do have character. This is a story. Get it?
You are in a minority – the general audiences (not just hardcore fans – regular audiences) are lapping this up and it is generating great word-of-mouth.
I was very skeptical going in, after reading some very mixed reviews on RT, but I enjoyed the hell out of the film, and so did everyone else in the theatre it seemed.
I would not describe myself as a hardcore fan of the franchise but I did enjoy LotR and I think I enjoyed this one even more.
I don’t understand the complaints about the length or the pacing – I thought the film flew by and the setup at the beginning in Bilbo’s house meeting the dwarf adventurers was one of the most charming and enjoying things I’ve watched in ages. The critics have really dropped the ball here in my opinion.
Very well said my friend.
With 65% on rottentomatoes she is hardly a small minority. A sizable portion of the audience find it to be a dragging, fluff and padding filled movie. They had to expand upon single sentences in the book in order to turn this into three films and it comes in the form of uselessness rather than story or character content. This could have easily been one movie, or two if they wanted to milk it. But three is insane! The book is 1/30th the size of Lord of the Rings and that got only three movies.
I haven’t seen the movie yet, so cannot comment as to its quality, but the 65% figure you mention is for “critics”. Those who’ve actually seen it, so far, give it an 81% approval rating. Are you sure 19% in agreement with your disdain for the movie should be considered “sizeable”?
In any case, I’ll soon know which camp I fall into.
I hardly pay attention to what critics say about movies like these. With fantasy and sci-fi, if you listen to critics, you’ll be a very disappointed fan all the time.
Forrest Gump won Best Picture, and that movie did about the same with critics as The Hobbit. Hell, The Blind Side was nominated for Best Picture…
Thats not true. 65% of reviews are positive on Rotten Tomatoes. The other percent are negative nancies jumping on the Peter Jackson bashing from the accusatory and conflagration from PETA and other animal rights groups trying to trash this movie. Most people I know have seen and loved this movie. The ones trashing it are trying to be en vogue with movie elitists who actually called the worn out and tired latest James Bond movie the greatest.
This was a well-made film and I enjoyed every minute of it-even the “talky” parts. It is story-telling at its best, and I look forward to the next one. Seems there are too many people out there with ADD…
The reason projections for this movie fell from $115 to $95 and now $85 is that word of mouth is not at all what Dan Hiland is saying. Saturday’s all-day/all night numbers were $30 million below what was reasonable to expect Friday night are almost certainly because word of mouth isn’t great. It’s on so many screens that the 2:46 running time isn’t the issue. Weak reviews, and weak fan buzz are kicking in.
Or people are upset from the shootings in Connecticut and watching the news rather than going out to the movies. The movie is really good. America’s taste in entertainment ,though, is going down the drain.
@David – I don’t buy that at all, that’s just a cop out man. If people want to really see a movie they’re going to see it, i know i am and i’m sure they’re plenty of folks who think like that. I think ‘Roger’ makes a very good point.
So true. I was relieved that several questions (from the book) were answered. Thankful for the prologue. Did not see a problem with the timing/plodding. Thought it well worth the time and cohesive.
if it is generating “great word of mouth” than why were there any “mixed reviews” i thought the movie was crap. and i won’t be wasting money on the next two.
Agree with this post. Saw it last night. Waited for years hoping for a good film. Jackson plain and simply altered so much of this book that it’s unforgivable. I’m an uber fan and I’m dissapointed.
Just like when Jackson royally screwed up “The Lovely Bones”. Extremely disappointing.
“Altered so much”?…Hell, this film is FAR more true to the book than any of the LotR films were.
“Altered so much”?…Hell, this film is FAR more true to the book than any of the LotR films were.
Possibly the most spurious comment I have ever seen on any board. Lotr trilogy stayed true in many parts. Sure some parts were altered but there is no comparison to the additions and alterations made to The Hobbit.
Stayed true as in changing the whole ending of the book? Changing the idea of the people of Rohan charging to Helm’s Deep rather than escaping to it? Changing Saruman’s time of death from the end of the book to Two Towers in the movie? C’mon man, do better than that!The Hobbit was very faithful to the book, which is why some people have issues with it. They are so attuned to fast action paced and fast food entertainment that they do not recognize good entertainment anymore.
There is a difference between being true to the book and true to the spirit of the book. Because movies typically condense the material found in books, they usually aim for the latter and the best ones are able to achieve it. The LOTR trilogy necessarily omitted a lot and added a lot, because film is a visual medium. Some of those decisions could have been better, but overall the movies captured the spirit of the books and much of their character. More importantly, they held up well as movies: good pacing, well rounded characters, great editing, etc.
The Hobbit, unfortunately, realizes neither goal. Azog and Radagast may have been in Tolkien’s universe, but there was a reason they were omitted from the novel. They add nothing of value to the story or characters’ developments, and are thin, distracting characters. And the spirit of the book–which was about the contrast between Bilbo and Thorin in answering “what makes someone a hero?”–gets weirdly glossed over in some moments and sped up too quickly in others. You end up with a big pile of action and set pieces, but the moments don’t thrill you like they did in LOTR because you simply *don’t care* about the outcome, the protagonists, or the antagonists. It’s unfortunate because Freeman is much more compelling as Bilbo than were most of the LOTR characters.
There were women show in the town of Dale during the prologue to the film. Would you like Jackson and company to make up some women to throw in? All I heard were negative comments when they came up with a bit part for a female elf for the next film…
Art does not exisit to fill quotas and pander to audiences.
So completely true. Read the LOTR books many times. As a woman I was furious with the substitution of Arwen for Glorfindel and the emasculisation and lessening of Faramir’s role in battle.
This was without a doubt the best movie I’ve ever seen. I’m going to go see it again today. This was far better than Fellowship, and Fellowship was incredible.
It does take a good 35 minutes to get going… but one must remember that Tolkien wrote the first Chapters of this book as a children’s story, entirely detatched from his Legendarium. That leads to some of the slapstick dialogue w/ the drawves at Bag End, & with the Trolls…
Quite different from LoTR’s… “They have a Cave Troll”-Boromir. That cave troll was not engaging in slapstick banter. That said the Prologue, Rivendell & Dol Gudur were amazing. I couldn’t be more pleased.
Respectfully disagree.
Took my 2 sons to this last night and we all 3 loved it.
I personally thought it was the best of the 4 films in the LOTR saga.
3 hours long and only the first 8 minutes or so was flat. (Of course it was setting the tone, so it’s understandable).
The action was pretty regular, the scenes were thorough but great dialogue, detail, acting, etc.
The cinematography was great and the new filming aspect was fine. I preferred to see the movie in 2D because I think 3D is overrated, but the times available were too late or too early a start, so we settled for 3D—to no disappointment.
Loved the group of actors, they had great chemistry and I liked young Bilbo better than Frodo.
Cannot wait for part two of this prequel trilogy!
I’m female, and I resent your comment. Why is it assumed that something has to show lots of women to appeal to women or even be fair to them? WTH? The most powerful person in the film is arguably a female (Galadriel). In the world Tolkien drew, a even though it’s a somewhat medieval society, women like Eowyn can be (and are) warriors. Others are powerful magically. This is a tired and already much refuted “complaint.” If you couldn’t relate, that’s a fair statement – the director did not manage to capture your attention. But don’t go dragging the rest of your gender into that and making an exaggerated generality out of it.
Amen.
The numbers dont agree with you sir , so you look and sound like an asshole
I first read the Hobbit in 1969 and LOTR the following year. I read them all at least once a year ever since.
I found this to be a fantastic movie. Tedious? I was unhappy that it ended. I could have watched another 2 hours.
I watch on XD HFR RealD 3D- loved the 3D in this movie and the 48 fps. It remained true to the book while educating those who lack Tolkien knowledge about the White Council and the other wizards
I passed when I heard “The Hobbit” was nearly 3 hours long and there would be 2 more of them…from a single book yet! Will just have to wait until this unnecesary trilogy is available on home video…well…someday.
Too bad all the other majors “stood down” this weekend; it might have been a good window for some shrewd counter-programming. I know I was up for a movie, just not this one.
Maybe you should read the book, poppet. I too am a woman and I loved the film, but then, I’ve read all the books many times.
I have to agree. Saw it last night and found it tedious and disappointing…and I’m a LOTR fan, albeit a purist (was aggravated by the changes made in the LOTR trilogy as well). As a woman, I could care less there are no women in it…the original epic story had women in it, they just weren’t the adventurers. I thought the actors all did a great job, but changing the story was not necessary…there was plenty of action to draw from for the film version in the book. I’m not planning to waste my money at the theater for the next two. I’ll wait till they make it to Red Box.
Honey, there was also only one female Smurf, and nobody tried to over-analyze that.
you stole the words right out of my head! except for one thing, my husband is a slight LOTR fan, but a huge Hobbit fan (read the books and saw the animated film when he was a child, and every time he saw LOTR he would talk about the hobbit book.) but he did not like this movie, Jackson ruined it for him. he is willing to give the other two a chance but he walked away feeling that he thought it should have been a 2 part movie not a trilogy and that Jackson only did that to line his pockets. I tend to agree with my hubby on this because with all that extra tedious time Jackson could have made the characters more likable, or given more dimension to them at least. 54 mins into the movie i was seriously pining for the door thinking i could theater hop to a better movie. at the very least i should have gone to the counter demanded a refund and gone Christmas shopping then swing back around and pick everyone up from the movie. but i thought that might have been a little rude… besides Hubby thanked me for being so patient.
I’m sorry I have to disagree with this poster view it was great cant wait for part 2and part3
Saw this with the wife on Friday then took my adolescent sons to see on Sunday. Great movie – was bummed when it ended – whole family loved it.
The messages are more sublime and this is only one of three movies for one book.if the two towers had been then first in the Lotr trilogy it might have been thought of differently,but why would the second book be ahead of the first I have no idea. So just enjoy the adventure as it unfolds for us and for bilbo.
You are too politically correct to enjoy or respect an author’s intent, or you changed regarding the Tolkien genre and do not realize it. And so what if x amount of women are in it or not. That is hardly a factor one way or the other unless you’ve been duped by Hollywood gender wars. LOTR made that mistake earlier by substituting women when various LOTR characters were men (to placate this attitude). As the the film itself, it was enjoyable for some of the same reasons LOTR was enjoyable, and other reasons unique to The Hobbit as well. The slower dialogue at times was a plus though not so good for people who carry ADD problems into films. Some people may not be aware of how they themselves might have changed about Middle Earth since the filming and release of LOTR. People’s moods and perspectives about film genre do change.
Did you read the book? There are ZERO women in the Hobbit. They added Galadriel to the movie based on the LOTR Appendices. Also, there is really no character development in the book. The movie has much more character development than the book did. Unlike the LOTR, the Hobbit was a children’s book and was not as nuanced as LOTR, which he wrote around 20 years later.
@wait and see – “The Hobbit” is definantly going to make money, anybody would be a fool not to think that. You make a good point on it’s legs given that it’s recieving less than stellar reviews, something the “LOTR” films strived on. Also the problems with people getting sick watching the film could be an issue with ramifications down the line. It seems poised to do well around the globe, i think here in America it has to open with at least 90-120 million or it could spell trouble. Something tells me this might not have the same kind of carry over like “Avatar” or the “LOTR” films did in Dec-Jan, but we’ll soon see.
Critics?!? Who cares about the critics? Star Wars was panned; Twilight was universally loathed. Some movies sell themselves, and this is one of them, regardless of its stand-alone “quality” as a movie. It is a window into a different world, and will make a billion dollars.
“Critics?!? Who cares about the critics?”
Obviously you do.
“Star Wars was panned”
Since when? Prove it.
Your reading comprehension skills are weak. The previous poster was referring to another poster. Do you watch movies based on what some professional nitwit says about it?
STAR WARS was NOT panned. It got rave reviews when it first came out (I know; I was around at the time). The whole “STAR WARS was panned” thing was invented by fanboys who want to think that they, and not the mainstream/critical establishment, were responsible for the movie’s success.
Should have said the newer trilogy. You know: Jar-Jar, Anakin’s hammy acting. Point is, it Doesn’t Matter! The story is bigger than the movie
Although Star Wars was generally well-received by critics, there were dissenting voices — most notably Pauline Kael’s.
Doesn’t matter. As far as the box office is concerned the Star Wars saga has proven itself critic-proof. I suspect the Hobbit films will follow suit.
The original Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back was critically acclaimed.Return of the Jedi,however, got mixed reviews.
omg seriously that’s how bad this movie sucked even the reviewers would rather talk about another movie in the comments!!!
Anyone that uses the word “fanboy” this day and age is like seeing granpa use the internet. You’re a hipster troll, Michael.
FANBOY FANBOY FANBOY! I cannot thin of any other reasoning so I will just use the word FANBOY so I can feel important!!!
@El Conquistador – “Star Wars” was not panned by critics my friend. It was nominated and won some Academy Awards that year, it would not have been nominated in the ‘Best Film’ category if it was panned by film critics, you can believe that. But you are right about one thing, many films panned by critics have gone on to be big smashes at the box office.
the star wars prequels on the other hand WERE panned by critics, and made bajillions of dollars. i think that was his point. “star wars” can be a bit vague at this point, it doesn’t always refer to a new hope
The viewers clearly don’t agree with the critics on this one. The film will have huge legs and great word of mouth.
It will have great legs b/c it’s a cultural touchstone, but will not have great word of mouth. But it doesn’t need word of mouth.
Legs are caused by word of mouth.
@brian – Not always. This will have “legs” because it’s a cultural touchstone as Bill eloquently said. Just like the huge numbers that went to see Phantom Menace, etc. We heard it stunk but had to see it anyway.
@Kim – I’ll have to disagree with you a little there, word of mouth always factors in a film’s legs. With bad word of mouth box office numbers drop off faster and they fall steeper.
No legs on this one. Big Saturday crash reported.
I hated it. It is simply too long, too ponderous, and the filming technique destroyed the fantasy entirely. I have never been so disappointed in a film I so desperately wanted to love. I saw each LOTR film five times and read the books more times than I can remember. I will NEVER see this film again. Dreadful.
Dude. Chill. You can still see itin 24 fps.
It is a good action fantasy movie. If you liked the Lord of the Rings movies you will like the Hobbit.
IMO, the first movie, will be kind of slow, drawn out to get to know the characters, but when the second and third movie comes out it will be successful, maybe not LOTR successful.
The same could be said about the Twilight movies, they make a ton of money regardless of review. The difference is this aint no Twilight, not by a long shot. If the Hobbit doesn’t bank a billion it will be considered a failure.
My friends (a non scientific poll no doubt) all enjoyed it during the midnight showing.
My belief is that the critics panning it were expecting Lord of the Rings IV and what they got was The Hobbit.
All you have to do is read the reviews to see most critics clearly never read the book. If you go in expecting a story like LotR, you will be massively disappointed. If you however know the differences between the two stories, you will probably enjoy it.
The criticisms of the fulmars baffling and largely baseless. Complaining that the set up of the characters was too long is a damned if you do damned if you don’t situation. I saw it on 2D 24fps with a group ranging from huge Tolkien Fans to just a casual lord of the rings film fans and every one of us thought it was fantastic. Perhaps over the top at points but with a lot if heart and wonderful performances. This film will be a huge success and those who hate it probably enjoyed films like Transformers or Dark Knight Rises…..
Spoiler Alert they both sucked
People who are complaining about Hobbit made the same complaints about Dark Knight Rises: it’s too long, the pacing sucks, and it’s too wordy.
wrong. I liked all three series, Trans, DK and the Hobbit. what the heck is your point dividing people based on “movie” politics? this is ridiculous. everyone I know likes all three series, plus indie movies like Drive and Argo. i just think the net is a waste when comments like your are posted.
You obviously don’t know me. I hated hated HATED Transformers 2 (149 minutes of LOUD with no story to back it up) and haven’t bothered to see #3 since 2 was so very very bad. DKR was also ultimately boring with a huge downer of an ending.
I am upset that Jackson padded this very small children’s novel into 3 films, and 3D is a needless gimmick, not to mention the 48FPS giving many people problems. I still have hope for it though.
Did you see the end of DKR?
Transformers shouldn’t have seen Alaska from its house.
We just got back from seeing the HFR 3-D version. I found none of the “looks like a made for TV movie” cheapness that has been reported. Early on, a scene in Dale does reveal people wearing bright colors, but it doesn’t look face, it looks vibrant. The 3-D effects are superb, and the special effects are even better than in Lord of the Rings. The integration of backstory from the appendices of LOTR is a valid source to stretch out the story to a three movie series and work well.
On the flip side, there were some jokes, funny bits, that were over the top, and the goblins were less frightening than LOTR, but this all fits lighter tone of the Hobbit itself.
My conclusion is that the critics, as always, have looked at the spectacular success of LOTR and were just waiting for any reason to find the Hobbit a disappointment. They found it, but it’s only in their jaded minds. Audiences will love it. We did.
Now, if they had broken off at the cliff hanger I feared they were going to do, it would have been ridiculous. However, they didn’t. You’ll understand when you see the movie.
“I found none of the “looks like a made for TV movie” cheapness that has been reported.”
______
Completely agree.
This was totally unfounded!!
The picture was crystal clear, the motion was fine.
There wasn’t a hint of “low grade” quality to it.
i saw the “made for TV movie” in the tedious movie. granted not all the time, but seriously the scenes were so bright, and clear it looked like my HD flat screen at home! that’s what made me think of it at first, then when you look at the prestigious costumes and the horrid battle scenes that look like a bunch of nwerds in costume fake hitting each other, or even the video game cut scene fights.. yeah it really felt like a low budget movie, not at all the caliber of LOTR. the studio should have reigned in Jackson on this.
I agree as well. once my eyes got used to the frame speed, I began to realize how beautiful this movie looked. We are becoming a very nihilistic society thats just hates everything.
I agree with your post completely. I cannot imagine why people say it was drawn out, to me it gave space enough to tell the story without cutting out parts that were necessary to tell the entire story. I LOVED THE 48 FPS! I saw it in Imax with this and it only took me about 5 minutes to get used to it. To me everything was so crystal clear that it felt like the story was being played out right in front of me. It also justified 3D which I typically hate, but the high frame rate, plus Imax plus 3D made it beautiful to watch and I can’t wait to see it like this again!
My only constructive critique of the film is the score. I love Howard Shore’s work, but I did feel that he recycled too many of the themes from LOTR and didn’t create enough new music (Besides the Misty Mountains song/dwarf theme). I expected to hear The Hobbit theme as well as other music such as Rivendell, Lothlorien, and Gollum’s music, but other themes that were used began to feel like he was recycling rather than inventing new music for a completely new film.
I think a lot of people may not have expected the lighter tone that these films will have compared to LOTR, which is a much darker trilogy. After seeing this, it makes complete sense to me that they are splitting it into 3 films because now they have room to tell the entire story the way it should be told, and they can also connect the two trilogies much better (I love that they’re including the Necromancer storyline).
Saw it at midnight. Enjoyed it. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is The Hobbit as told by Bilbo, the way Bilbo who loved to tell stories of his adventures over and over again would tell it. The same Bilbo who originally lied about how he got the ring… That is the key to enjoying this movie. Once people get past this thing being different from the trilogy or that thing not looking the same etc.. they’ll enjoy it more. Its kind of funny really, for the last few years all I heard online was people saying “The Hobbit was a lighter, funnier (kids) story. Jackson is going to make it darker and more serious and ruin the spirit.” Now some of the same people are upset because they didn’t get a rehash of the trilogy films.
The trilogy is Frodo’s story as told by Frodo in his portion of The Red Book of Westmarch. The Hobbit (trilogy) is Bilbo’s experiences and research for his memoirs as told by an 111 year old Hobbit who looked back on a time 60 years earlier fondly, as a time of great adventure in his life that he longed to go off and recapture again, but alas became too old. The Hobbit movie is told with the same kind of embellishment as THAT Bilbo would tell them to Frodo or any young hobbit who would listen to his tale…
That said, its by no means a perfect film… and it will take seeing the finished product, all three parts to (whether you like that product or not) at least see what Jackson’s vision is for The Hobbit.
This is perhaps the best description of the differences between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings I have ever read, and it makes so much sense.
Critics impact the opening, friends impact the following weeks. I read the books, and went to the other three movies twice each.
Barring some huge errors, I cannot imagine not seeing this movie twice.
Hmmm… Havent read any reviews yet, but from the trailer i have my doubts about this one, and i’m a LOTR nut. It is based on a children’s book, tho.
After 9-11 we all went to Jackson’s lord of the rings I. After today’s tragedy we will all be at the Hobbit. This film will gross $1 billion minimum. Now as then it’s safer to live in Hobbiton then our world.
I think this weekend’s grosses were significantly affected by the shooting. I expect people to hesitate to take their kids out to the movies for a few weeks.
Having seen it, my guess is it will have legs as short as a hobbit.
There have been so few stand-out movies for so long now, audiences will be grateful just to see (as the critics are calling it) a half-decent movie… it’ll be a blockbuster just because of pent-up demand…
I agree – with no major films in the last 2 weeks, and with all the Thanksgiving releases having peaked, The Hobbit will have a huge weekend. And even if it’s a snore, it will stay huge throughout Xmas break, since none of the other December releases remotely appeal to the under-17 crowd (except Monsters Inc. 3D, but it’s not serious competition).
Waiting to hear the blowback about HFR 3D…
I saw it in HFR 3D and was very upset. Soap opera effect to the max…jittery camera moves are very obvious. total disaster.
but the movie is great (besides the slow start). i will see again, but in good old fashioned 24fps 2D.
At first I was a bit dissapointed with the 48 fps but after an hour or so I couldn’t be happier. The best part of the high frame rate are the battle scenes which look absolutely stellar. The 3D was very impressive as well.
Have to disagree with you on this.
I too prefer 2D anyday over a 3D film.
But I had absolutely no complaints about this film in 3D or in the faster speed.
In fact, I thought the picture was crystal clear and of very high quality.
@Jon the Journo – 65% on RT is not terrible, but it’s not great either. I think it’s getting “Shitted on” because it’s being judged against the “LOTR” trilogy, rather it’s fair or not is up to everyone to decide.
You’re absolutely correct Orlando – but it’s the ridiculous hyperbole of “Wait and See” I felt it necessary to have a dig at. There’s a growing band of folk online who spew ill-informed and childish generalisations and I think it’s necessary to give people a reality check sometimes. I see the word “horrible” cropping up more and more on these boards – and I tell you, as an English bloke, the word “horrible” brings to mind a four-year-old with a heavy foot and tears in his eyes, not a level-headed commentator on an alleged trade title. Someone has to start taking a stand against this sort of tosh and correcting the nonsense spread around by people who should know better. “Wait and See” just irked me – if I met him in real life I think my tolerance would expire after about three seconds.
I’m sure if Bilbo used the “N” word multiple times, was black, gay or a communist the critics would have loved it.
What a stale, untrue, and unoriginal comment.
Absolute
Yes, just like in the LOTR movies. Wait a minute…
You neigh-sayers are a bunch of idiots. All I keep seeing is “I loved LOTR, were are the epic battles!?!” If you would have read The Hobbit then you would have know there are no “epic” battles like Two Towers and ROTK. This movie is solely about Bilbos adventure and how the Ring of Power came to be in his possession.
To the trolls that complain about “That wasnt in the book!” True, it might not have been in book itself, but that doesnt mean it wasnt taken from Tolkien’s other Middle Earth books. He did manage to write other books such as the The Silmarillion and The Unfinished Tales and History of Middle Earth. That is were alot of the “THAT WASNT INT HE BOOK!” scenes come from. Jackson incorporated parts of those books into the film, and I think thats genius. So please, stop with all the whining now. You have been educated.
As a matter of fact, there is so an epic battle in Hobbit. The Battle of Five Armies. Which we’ll have to wait another two years to see. I loved this movie. It was great to see an annoying fussy dork like Bilbo turn into a human being.
Stupid remark- they didn’t incorporate from those books they have NO RIGHTS in those books.
“Stupid remark- they didn’t incorporate from those books they have NO RIGHTS in those books.”
__________________
It’s called Literary License.
You do realize you’re not watching a JRR Tolkien book on the screen right??
It’s an adaptation FROM his stories, but it’s from someone else’s take, or interpretation.
Sit back and enjoy it for what it is, not what it maybe should be.
you’re both right/wrong
yes, there is license (there always is) and yes there is material added that wasn’t in the hobbit. however, that material is NOT from the extraneous books, it’s from the appendicies of the return of the king, which jackson has clearly stated numerous times.
…True, but they DO have rights to the appendices. And that IS where some of this is coming from. I don’t say all because I don’t them chapter and verse, but some I know for sure. Some is merely expanding a throwaway bit (possibly the stone giants? not sure….) into a whole scene. I liked the movie – I didn’t love it. I did hate the stone giants. But I am withholding all judgement until 1) all 3 movies are out and 2) I hear from the scriptwriters about the reasons for some of the changes they made to the story. For LOTR, they did manage to change my mind on some things I thought they should not have changed, by explaining why they felt it necessary (and therefore showing me they cared about doing it right and didn’t make changes “just because.”)
Fair enough, but the fact still remains, this is an adaptation of a text. And by definition, it means an adjustment or modification. Maybe the writers of the screenplay felt various deviations from the actual text would better serve the film. The point is, purists should relax a bit. Enjoy it and not criticize it as if it should follow word for word.
Any director/screenwriter who would sit down and make a movie of ANY novel, would have a different outcome than any other who would work on the same project.
The thing that really puts me off this movie is the question: “why did it have to be so long?” does it really take 9 hours, spread over THREE YEARS to tell this story? Is peter jackson really so self obsessed that he’ll bleed out every last second he can and then just release an extended edition as well? The director who made tight, exciting films before LOTR is gone now. Instead even a basic retelling of King Kong needs to be 3 hours. I really wish Del Toro got his shot at it. He’d have made a tight movie.
I can’t agree with you on this. This is part one – you can’t say it’s drawn out until you see the whole. Meanwhile, not only could three movies be easily made of The Hobbit if you expand the backstory and show what’s going on the rest of the world while Bilbo is having his adventure, you could arguably do several more movies from just items left out of the LOTR movie triology. Hell, Bombadil’s portion itself would make a 2-hour movie easily and would be fantastic. That’s all down to Tolkien’s writing and the depth of the worlds he created. Whether PJ manages to do it the way you would like is another issue – but it most certainly could be done from the material at hand that he has access to.
It’s really only 1.5 years. Dec 12 to Dec 13 is one year, then June 2014 is only 6 mos after that.
So how did it do in Middle Earth?
Just saw the movie today at a 3-D IMAX and loved all of it. The story is of Bilbo and his finding of the ring. Wonderfully, wonderfully done. I very much am looking forward to seeing this movie several more times, and of course, to the next installments!