Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
What impact is this film's reception going to have on the next two films?
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Crunchable Birdses
Rohan


Dec 13 2012, 10:41pm

Post #1 of 36 (1253 views)
Shortcut
What impact is this film's reception going to have on the next two films? Can't Post

You know the story now. RottenTomatoes is in the 60s; virtually every review (even the good ones) is moaning about the length of the film, (and the 48fps, but I think it's the length that the reviewers hate more than anything).

We are officially through the looking glass people - the unthinkable has happened, and a Peter Jackson Middle-earth film is getting a significant number of bad reviews, mostly whining about the length and/or the pacing, and it's only 2 hours and 40 mins! Less than any of the LotR films!

Does this give Warner Brothers the license to lay down the law? Are we going to get short-changed with the next two films? Will they be only two hours long each? What does this mean for the extra shooting that is scheduled for next year - is it even needed now?

Is this the death of 48fps?

Will this whole sorry situation cast a grey cloud over Peter Jackson's mood for the duration of the trilogy's production?

* crunch *


RalphDamiani
Rivendell

Dec 13 2012, 11:02pm

Post #2 of 36 (749 views)
Shortcut
My 2 cents [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't think this means the death of 48fps, far from it. Technology will continue to evolve and other directors will embrace it. The public will have to get used to it. But perhaps studios won't take such a great risk in CG heavy productions of these proportions. Who is to say other kinds of movies won't benefit from it? Besides, many people appear to have enjoyed the new format.

Box office won't see a hit because of the bad reviews, not in this one or the next, but I'm willing to bet PJ will be a little more conservative with the editing of the next films, leaving more material to the extended version.


(This post was edited by RalphDamiani on Dec 13 2012, 11:03pm)


dormouse
Half-elven


Dec 13 2012, 11:15pm

Post #3 of 36 (692 views)
Shortcut
I think the reception that really counts... [In reply to] Can't Post

... is the box office. After all, most of the filming is done already


Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Dec 13 2012, 11:19pm

Post #4 of 36 (645 views)
Shortcut
Almost nothing, one would imagine. [In reply to] Can't Post

Flip flopping doesn't seem an obvious strategy.

LR


sycorax82
Rohan

Dec 13 2012, 11:23pm

Post #5 of 36 (636 views)
Shortcut
DoS should definitely be tightened up. [In reply to] Can't Post

I would like to see it around 2hrs with a crazy, intense pace, just to throw it in the face of all the critics! Peter can always add 30 minutes back in with the EE.

I think WB will definitely ask for a shorter movie, seeing as nearly every single review harps on about the length.


Carne
Tol Eressea

Dec 13 2012, 11:40pm

Post #6 of 36 (581 views)
Shortcut
Box office is all that matters [In reply to] Can't Post

If this movie rakes in hundreds of millions of dollars (which it most likely will), then nothing is going to happen to the length of TDOS and TABA.


(This post was edited by Carne on Dec 13 2012, 11:41pm)


Notanelvishname
Lorien

Dec 13 2012, 11:42pm

Post #7 of 36 (581 views)
Shortcut
WB doesn't care about the critics. [In reply to] Can't Post

And if the movie eventually fails, they have their own army of "experts" to guess what they have to "fix".
But it will be more in terms of tone and demographic than pace and length...


shadowdog
Rohan

Dec 13 2012, 11:53pm

Post #8 of 36 (598 views)
Shortcut
Such doom and gloom [In reply to] Can't Post

give the movie a chance to come out in the worldwide theaters and see how it does before we begin to cancel the next two. Wink


elanesse
Rivendell


Dec 13 2012, 11:58pm

Post #9 of 36 (524 views)
Shortcut
technology [In reply to] Can't Post

i think this "progress" thing is just pure technology glorification. the "bigger" is not automatically the better!

48fps may be very useful and adequate for documentarys, but not for movie-movies.


elanesse
Rivendell


Dec 14 2012, 12:04am

Post #10 of 36 (581 views)
Shortcut
the lengh wasn't the problem [In reply to] Can't Post

the problem was - you sometimes really saw that this was a small book blown up into a trilogy.

and i had the impression, that the film screamed "LIKE me, LOVE me, LOOK how big i am, how expensive i was!"


redgiraffe
Rohan

Dec 14 2012, 12:30am

Post #11 of 36 (471 views)
Shortcut
I feel the same [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
give the movie a chance to come out in the worldwide theaters and see how it does before we begin to cancel the next two. Wink


CB, you are awesome but I also feel as if this thread is a little too doom and gloom too early. The movie hasn't premiered yet in America. Give it a week or two after it's premiered everywhere. That will give us a better understanding of where the reviews fall.

-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle


imin
Valinor


Dec 14 2012, 12:52am

Post #12 of 36 (449 views)
Shortcut
Hmm well [In reply to] Can't Post

I dont think it needs to be the death of 48fps. Many dont like it but there are probably enough who do like it to keep it a viable option for the next two.

Personally i would like them to if not be shorter films be better paced and just generally tighter films for the next two. I have hopes with more material (in my mind) to get into that they will.

I dont think they will be 2 hours long, but i could see 2 hours 20 mins maybe? Not much difference but perhaps enough.

Ultimately it all comes down to how much money it makes. If it makes million upon millions as i am sure it will then nothing will change i imagine.

Ultimately it should have been two films anyway and they squeezed it for all its worth with 3, so even if it makes less than the 3 LOTR movies, it will still be more than 2 hobbit films would have made (unless they were avatar monsters at the box office).

I dont really care if it casts a cloud on PJ - not that i think it will - i think he will just try harder for the next two - hopefully get a better score and pacing!


frodolives
Lorien

Dec 14 2012, 12:58am

Post #13 of 36 (442 views)
Shortcut
I don't think 48 fps will last at all... [In reply to] Can't Post

... because 60fps is going to usurp it pretty quickly. James Cameron is shooting his Avatar sequels at 60fps.

I honestly hope Warner Brothers asks PJ to limit his next two films to 2 hours and save the extra stuff for the extended DVDs. I doubt it will happen (brevity isn't PJ's thing). It would be nice to see better critical reception for the next two films, but it seems like a lot of these critics have determined that three films is too much, regardless of the next two installments. I'm mostly worried that audiences are going to find this film 'boring' and that will hurt the next film's box office.


morgenstern
The Shire


Dec 14 2012, 1:06am

Post #14 of 36 (441 views)
Shortcut
Yep [In reply to] Can't Post

I found interesting the description that the three-film franchise was essentially a license to print money.

Denny's will make their cut from their Middle-earth meals, and I'm sure merchandising figures will make more than an adequate return.

48FPS and 3D on a bloated film is akin to lipstick on a pig -- but neither is a game-breaker nor game-maker. If the film sucks because you've diluted the original story with unnecessary background exposition and all manner of ancillary bits, the technology used to film it is irrelevant.

But ultimately, the only review that's really important is the ROI -- box office receipts, as has previously been mentioned.


Crunchable Birdses
Rohan


Dec 14 2012, 1:55am

Post #15 of 36 (372 views)
Shortcut
Thank you :) [In reply to] Can't Post

And I hope you're right (about me being awesome) - just kidding - I hope you're right about the mood lifting once the film has been out for a week or so.

* crunch *


redgiraffe
Rohan

Dec 14 2012, 2:00am

Post #16 of 36 (357 views)
Shortcut
hehe [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
And I hope you're right (about me being awesome) - just kidding - I hope you're right about the mood lifting once the film has been out for a week or so.


Well let's not be too hasty hereWink. I'm not saying that I think the mood will lift once the film has been out everywhere for a few weeks. I certainly hope it does lift. But I really don't know if it will or not. It's just that it's always possible that it could get better reviews from other areas. We will just have to wait and see.

But I do understand where you are coming from though. It's just that I think it's a little too early to tell what "everyone" thinks about the movie.

-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle

(This post was edited by redgiraffe on Dec 14 2012, 2:02am)


imin
Valinor


Dec 14 2012, 2:02am

Post #17 of 36 (382 views)
Shortcut
Personally i think when the dust settles [In reply to] Can't Post

on this film, some people will realise it wasnt as bad as they initially thought and come to like it more.

Some people who have watched it twice already have said they preferred it the second time round - maybe its a movie that will grow on people?

Those are some things i am hoping for and i think for most people it could just be going along with the crowd at the moment - its the cool thing to say, though i have disliked a fair few things myself, lol, overall i liked it for what it was.

I think it all comes down to peoples expectations - looking back mine was way too high and so even though the film is good i came out feeling a niggling disappointment.


redgiraffe
Rohan

Dec 14 2012, 2:46am

Post #18 of 36 (352 views)
Shortcut
2 viewings [In reply to] Can't Post

That's another point I wanted to bring up. A lot of reviews don't seem to have the fortune of viewing it more than once. And the critics are left with their initial impression (which is completely justified). But a second viewing can easily change your thoughts. I hated ROTK the first time I saw it. But the second time I absolutely loved it.

And also peer pressure can most certainly play a role in it. Some critics might not want to like it because they've seen other critics not like it. I'm pretty sure people do this with positive reviews as well (I think that's what happened with titanic).

-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle

(This post was edited by redgiraffe on Dec 14 2012, 2:49am)


The Preciousss
Bree

Dec 14 2012, 7:35am

Post #19 of 36 (260 views)
Shortcut
I loved the movie [In reply to] Can't Post

and I honestly cannot understand how you could have done the story justice in two movies. Imagine they would have stuck to the original plan and ended with the barrel escape, how would all that extra material have fit in a 3 hour movie (Beorn, Spiders, Elves)? The only things which I think could have been cut eventually (even though I liked them, would have been the warg chase and the Stone giant fight (which are essentially two big action sequences that the so called critics prefer to the deeper stuff anyway...). What I find extremely difficult is how Jackson managed to make a nearly 3 hour movie with a 40 minute build up and we still onlyget to know less then half the dwarves. I find it ridiculous that critics lament that there are TWO!!! songs during the bag end scenes ,which together clock in at less than 3 minutes are seen as bloat.I think that the box office will show the critics where they can shove their reviews. I will see this movie again at least twice in the cinema, the last movie I have seen multiple times was ROTK...


Welsh hero
Gondor


Dec 14 2012, 9:19am

Post #20 of 36 (236 views)
Shortcut
They may be shorter [In reply to] Can't Post

and they'll show the next one to the critics in 24fps

-Irfon

Twitter: @IrfonPennant
middle earth timeline FB: https://www.facebook.com/MiddleEarth1


TheCoon
Lorien

Dec 14 2012, 11:20am

Post #21 of 36 (197 views)
Shortcut
wel... [In reply to] Can't Post

the movie made over a billion dollars and set a December record but 48/153 people who didnt even pay a dime to see it had some petty complaints so i think the next 2 need a complete overhaul












said no one ever


redgiraffe
Rohan

Dec 14 2012, 11:39am

Post #22 of 36 (185 views)
Shortcut
Mhhm [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
and I honestly cannot understand how you could have done the story justice in two movies. Imagine they would have stuck to the original plan and ended with the barrel escape, how would all that extra material have fit in a 3 hour movie (Beorn, Spiders, Elves)? The only things which I think could have been cut eventually (even though I liked them, would have been the warg chase and the Stone giant fight (which are essentially two big action sequences that the so called critics prefer to the deeper stuff anyway...). What I find extremely difficult is how Jackson managed to make a nearly 3 hour movie with a 40 minute build up and we still onlyget to know less then half the dwarves. I find it ridiculous that critics lament that there are TWO!!! songs during the bag end scenes ,which together clock in at less than 3 minutes are seen as bloat.I think that the box office will show the critics where they can shove their reviews. I will see this movie again at least twice in the cinema, the last movie I have seen multiple times was ROTK...


I got back from my viewing few hours ago and I have to say I agree with EVERY SINGLE THING you have said here.

As I was watching this movie I started to think "how on earth were they going to make this in only two movies?" It seems like a lot to get through for the first movie with the original idea. They would have had to gone through everything here and then go through the entire Mirkwood sequence and end it with the barrels.

I also agree they probably could have cut some things with the 2-movie setup (like the warg chase and the stone giants) but that really wouldn't cut down enough time for the rest of the story, in my opinion. I honestly believe now that the two movie idea would have felt REALLY REALLY rushed and there would have been so little time for character development. It would have seemed like they were just jumping from point to point from the book and trying to fit it all in.

And like you said, I noticed in a bunch of reviews the critics seemed to lament all of the "exposition" and preferred the action sequences. Well after seeing this, I'm losing respect for critics.

This brings me to the 2 songs of the dwarves. WOW! THAT was bloat?! I certainly don't think so. The first one lasted for maybe a minute. And the second one was actually a good solemn moment to show the seriousness behind the dwarves' motives. It's a good character moment.

I am a little disappointed, however, that we didn't get to know all of the dwarves. I wasn't expecting every single one of them to go through character arcs like Thorin, but I was hoping for more dialogue with them so we could get a feeling as if we know them. I'm guessing this was probably a result of the split to 3 movies b/c PJ probably had more dialogue and character that was supposed to be carried out over a longer time-frame. This doesn't really make it okay, it's just an explanation. But hopefully we will get to know the rest much better over the next 2 films.

-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle


imin
Valinor


Dec 14 2012, 11:54am

Post #23 of 36 (189 views)
Shortcut
I can think of some things to cut [In reply to] Can't Post

all the stuff with radagast - not needed.

Cut the entire stone giants out.

Cut the scene of the warg pack hunting them from the off. Infact cut the part of Azog back as it changed the tone of the film compared to the book.

That alone would have saved about 20-30 mins.

Shorten the transformers-like goblin town chase sequences where physics seems to work in mysterious ways (but its a kids film so we are meant to forget that) - that gives another 10 mins.

There we go we would get a tighter, better film.

For me the film felt rushed but padded at the same time if thats possible - where it worked it really worked, When it didnt, it was so bleh!


redgiraffe
Rohan

Dec 14 2012, 12:12pm

Post #24 of 36 (173 views)
Shortcut
Yeah I don't disagree [In reply to] Can't Post

It's just that I don't see how they would have done two films with the DG subplot as well. In my opinion, even if they did cut 30-40 minutes off from that it still wouldn't be enough extra time to get them to Beorn and through Mirkwood.

I would rather a few action sequences to have been cut with more character scenes in place.

And I do also think it felt a little rushed, especially once the action got going. I would have liked to have seen more character moments, and development. Hopefully we will get that with the EE.

But that kind of brings me back to my original point. I think if it was 2 movies it would have felt even more rushed.

Just my opinion though.

-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle

(This post was edited by redgiraffe on Dec 14 2012, 12:14pm)


imin
Valinor


Dec 14 2012, 12:44pm

Post #25 of 36 (146 views)
Shortcut
Cut out all the dol guldur stuff then :) [In reply to] Can't Post

I think it just i dunno, spent too long on action sequences and not enough on the character moments like you.

If it swopped this round there would be ample time in my opinion during two films of a similar length - think how much happened in the lord of the rings films!

It could just be the episodic nature of the hobbit doesnt lend itself to being translated into film as well as the lord of the rings as you are always jumping from one thing to the next without a moment to think.

The best moments in the film were when things just stood still and talked but PJ loves his action, lol.

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.