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:
Has Mr. Jackson shown any signs of contrition?
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next page Last page  View All

Joe B.
The Shire

Mar 6 2013, 7:19am

Post #1 of 240 (2267 views)
Shortcut
Has Mr. Jackson shown any signs of contrition? Can't Post

I suspect that many of you will be offended by the title of this thread, but I'm not here to (re-)litigate the merits of the movie; rather, I'm curious, in light of the fact that the critical consensus (see RT scores) seems to be that AUJ was not as good a film as any of the Rings films, whether Mr. Jackson has publicly shown any sign that he regrets any of his creative choices in bringing the LOTR "prequel"(s) to the screen?

(This post was edited by Joe B. on Mar 6 2013, 7:19am)


Aragorn the Elfstone
Grey Havens


Mar 6 2013, 7:38am

Post #2 of 240 (1346 views)
Shortcut
Affirmative on the first part. [In reply to] Can't Post

In any case, no, he has not - and, no, he should not.

"All men dream; but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds awake to find that it was vanity; But the dreamers of day are dangerous men. That they may act their dreams with open eyes to make it possible."
- T.E. Lawrence


(This post was edited by Aragorn the Elfstone on Mar 6 2013, 7:41am)


Silmaril
Lorien


Mar 6 2013, 8:07am

Post #3 of 240 (1258 views)
Shortcut
why should he? [In reply to] Can't Post

he made the film he wanted to see, which was the reason to do it again. and it's successful.


macfalk
Valinor


Mar 6 2013, 8:20am

Post #4 of 240 (1174 views)
Shortcut
$1,001,424,668 // [In reply to] Can't Post

 



The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.


Elizabeth
Valinor


Mar 6 2013, 8:50am

Post #5 of 240 (1205 views)
Shortcut
The Hobbit is not Lord of the Rings. [In reply to] Can't Post

It has neither the depth nor the scope, and therefore not the potential for being as much of a ground-breaker. Jackson has made the $1B the studio hoped for, and a lot of people have enjoyed the movie. I think he's very proud of what he's accomplished.








DanielLB
Immortal


Mar 6 2013, 9:04am

Post #6 of 240 (1159 views)
Shortcut
That's assuming that the production team believe AUJ was a failure ... [In reply to] Can't Post

Which, after making $1 billion, I don't think they will. Who cares about inflation and yada yada yada. Let's wait until all 3 films are out before calling The Hobbit a failure.

Smile


Angharad73
Rohan


Mar 6 2013, 10:46am

Post #7 of 240 (1097 views)
Shortcut
I don't see why he should [In reply to] Can't Post

There will always be criticism and plenty of people who disagree with his choices, no matter what he does. PJ made the movie he wanted to make, and he's right in doing so. Why should he have regrets about it?

And the movie *did* make $ 1 billion, there is no denying that. So why would anyone see it as a failure, really?


Glorfindela
Valinor

Mar 6 2013, 11:34am

Post #8 of 240 (1068 views)
Shortcut
Who gives a toss [In reply to] Can't Post

what the self-opinionated American critic-idiots say? They were wrong, and audiences worldwide have made up their own minds.

I trust PJ will take no notice of those critics and proceed as he wants to when it comes to the next two films. (I think he will he seems to be his own man.)


QuackingTroll
Valinor


Mar 6 2013, 11:56am

Post #9 of 240 (1067 views)
Shortcut
How much did Twilight make? // [In reply to] Can't Post

 


Arannir
Valinor

Mar 6 2013, 12:03pm

Post #10 of 240 (1084 views)
Shortcut
And wasn't Twilight the movie fans wanted to see? [In reply to] Can't Post

 


sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea

Mar 6 2013, 12:19pm

Post #11 of 240 (1041 views)
Shortcut
Was it just American critics? [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Who gives a toss what the self-opinionated American critic-idiots say? They were wrong, and audiences worldwide have made up their own minds.

Just curious. I seem to remember at least a couple negative reviews coming out of the UK.


QuackingTroll
Valinor


Mar 6 2013, 12:53pm

Post #12 of 240 (1040 views)
Shortcut
Judging by sales of things like "Twilight in Forks" [In reply to] Can't Post

Anything with the word Twilight on it is what the fans want to see, that doesn't make them good films... If the book is popular enough, then sales figures become a meaningless indicator of how good the movie is. People were going to see The Hobbit regardless of how good critics said it is, just because they liked LotR or the books.

The only accurate indicator we have right now is what reviews are saying and almost all of them compare it to LotR saying that it's not as good... If you can't accept that then you're in denial.

For the record, I loved The Hobbit, I'm just not blind to what other people are saying


DanielLB
Immortal


Mar 6 2013, 1:03pm

Post #13 of 240 (1019 views)
Shortcut
A good indicator would be how many seats were actually sold [In reply to] Can't Post

So we can get an idea of how many people actually saw the film. I have no idea whether this information is available?


Otaku-sempai
Half-elven


Mar 6 2013, 1:05pm

Post #14 of 240 (1057 views)
Shortcut
While I do consider 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey' to be a flawed film... [In reply to] Can't Post

I expect that some (if not many) of the criticisms aimed toward it will evaporate when the film is seen in the context of the entire trilogy. A similar phenomenon happened with The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring.

'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring


imin
Valinor


Mar 6 2013, 1:17pm

Post #15 of 240 (1000 views)
Shortcut
I have wondered this myself a few times [In reply to] Can't Post

And openly asked if anyone knows where this info is on the net. I am not entirely sure it is public knowledge. However one could estimate the number of people to have viewed the film by going off the BO takings and dividing it by average ticket price. Things get complicated when you have to factor in 3D and then IMAX and then different currencies etc. I think it could be done for say US or UK where we know the percentage of people watching in 3D and IMAX and the total BO takings.

Basically its lots of people but not as many as when people went to see the LOTR movies.


QuackingTroll
Valinor


Mar 6 2013, 1:19pm

Post #16 of 240 (992 views)
Shortcut
That only indicates how many people saw it. Not how many liked it. [In reply to] Can't Post

Like I said, people were going to watch The Hobbit regardless of how good it is or how good people say it is. The franchise is just too popular for ticket sales to indicate anything.

Sales for the Extended DVD, however, will indicate how many people want to see more of the film. These people must have liked the movie.


(This post was edited by QuackingTroll on Mar 6 2013, 1:20pm)


QuackingTroll
Valinor


Mar 6 2013, 1:26pm

Post #17 of 240 (972 views)
Shortcut
I agree... [In reply to] Can't Post

I think a lot of the qualms people have with AUJ stems from the fact that they don't know where the story is going and therefore don't see the relevance in certain scenes. Once the story is complete these scenes will make more sense.

One does wonder, though, whether it should be necessary to watch the sequel in order to appreciate a film.


Otaku-sempai
Half-elven


Mar 6 2013, 1:46pm

Post #18 of 240 (961 views)
Shortcut
When the film is only part of the story? [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I think a lot of the qualms people have with AUJ stems from the fact that they don't know where the story is going and therefore don't see the relevance in certain scenes. Once the story is complete these scenes will make more sense.

One does wonder, though, whether it should be necessary to watch the sequel in order to appreciate a film.



Well, in this case, the films are all part of a single, serialized story rather than three separate stories about the same character. We don't get a complete tale in any one of the three; the added sub-plots just add to the complexity of the whole (although I'm not sure that the 'Azog' story will pay off by adding any depth).

'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring


Lindele
Gondor


Mar 6 2013, 1:49pm

Post #19 of 240 (981 views)
Shortcut
So because [In reply to] Can't Post

a few jaded critics who would not have liked AUJ no matter how it had turned out gave it negative reviews, you think PJ should apologize?
No thanks.


Hanzkaz
Rohan

Mar 6 2013, 1:59pm

Post #20 of 240 (946 views)
Shortcut
If Jackson is like other artists - [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
whether Mr. Jackson has publicly shown any sign that he regrets any of his creative choices in bringing the LOTR "prequel"(s) to the screen?


- he'll always have new ideas about a project, even after it is completed.

He had to make a film that served a number of different purposes and catered to very different audiences. The only other thing he could have done was make multiple versions of AUJ to please all the different kinds of viewers likely to watch it. I'll admit I'm not too thrilled about some of his decisions, but I think he gets most of it right - or better than I would have.

___________________________________________________


From the makers of 'The Lord of the Rings' comes the sequel to Peter Jackson's Hobbit Trilogy -
'The War in the North, Part I : The Sword in the Tomb'.



Glorfindela
Valinor

Mar 6 2013, 2:00pm

Post #21 of 240 (944 views)
Shortcut
However, [In reply to] Can't Post

The LOTR films were shown in cinemas FAR longer than the Hobbit has been. I don't know for sure, but cinema attendances may also have declined in general since LOTR appeared in cinemas. Possibly some people have those huge screens and do most of their film watching at home? I think it is impossible to make comparisons with the situation then and now.


In Reply To
And openly asked if anyone knows where this info is on the net. I am not entirely sure it is public knowledge. However one could estimate the number of people to have viewed the film by going off the BO takings and dividing it by average ticket price. Things get complicated when you have to factor in 3D and then IMAX and then different currencies etc. I think it could be done for say US or UK where we know the percentage of people watching in 3D and IMAX and the total BO takings.

Basically its lots of people but not as many as when people went to see the LOTR movies.



imin
Valinor


Mar 6 2013, 2:01pm

Post #22 of 240 (956 views)
Shortcut
I don't think PJ should apologize [In reply to] Can't Post

but do we have any proof critics were going to say its not that good no matter what they watched?


imin
Valinor


Mar 6 2013, 2:04pm

Post #23 of 240 (946 views)
Shortcut
OK compared to Skyfall then [In reply to] Can't Post

They are both at the same year and ticket prices should be the same when its 2d vs 2d etc. I also think it was in the cinema for the same length of time or less.

The comparison with lotr was done as its previous M-e films. Comparisons could be done but it would be hard to know for sure how accurate they are. One way could be to look at how much LOTR made in the same amount of weeks as TH and work it out that way - like i said though it would be really hard to work out!


Glorfindela
Valinor

Mar 6 2013, 2:09pm

Post #24 of 240 (923 views)
Shortcut
The same applies to the LOTR films [In reply to] Can't Post

These are also part of a single story. There are actually fewer subplots in the Hobbit than there were in TTT and ROTK I found the switching from scene to scene extremely tiresome, especially in ROTK, where the Frodo scenes in particular really dragged on.

For me, the Hobbit felt complete enough.

I really like the sub-plots in the Hobbit, and the fact that there are mysteries still to be revealed, for instance about the goings on at Dul Gurdur and Angmar's grave, and Gandalf's absences. I'm glad we are not ending up with a cartoon-like children's story.

At the end of the day, whatever PJ did, people would still complain endlessly they did in the case of the LOTR films, too. I thought he did brilliantly.

Well, in this case, the films are all part of a single, serialized story rather than three separate stories about the same character. We don't get a complete tale in any one of the three; the added sub-plots just add to the complexity of the whole (although I'm not sure that the 'Azog' story will pay off by adding any depth).



imin
Valinor


Mar 6 2013, 2:14pm

Post #25 of 240 (936 views)
Shortcut
I agree [In reply to] Can't Post

From reading some reviews of the film - some where critical of Tolkien's original work, others of HFR, others were about how characters just popped up then were left hanging with no resolution or further development - i think those problems will disappear when the three films can be watched together to show the whole story.

I didn't like Radagast in the film but i am interested to see where his story goes in the next two films.

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 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.