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:
New Box Office Totals
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page Last page  View All

Old Toby
Gondor


Feb 19 2013, 3:19pm

Post #151 of 165 (400 views)
Shortcut
Yes, I agree [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To

I also think the other two will make more money and be better received by critics as some reviews were just about 48fps so they have to talk about something else now - who knows some of them may even like HFR this time round, lol.


with the above. I know people who didn't like the HFR, but honestly I don't know what all the brouhaha was all about. I absolutely loved the 3D HFR version, thought it was far superior to 2D, and always saw it in that format for as long as it played here. But I thought, well, if you don't like it in 3D HFR, then by all means go see it in 2D! I was quite taken aback by the widespread bad press by the critics. Then again, I don't put much stock in critics. However I know personally many people who do, unfortunately, and judge a film solely by what other people say...even before they themselves have seen it! sigh. But yeah, I think the next two films will be better received in general.

"Age is always advancing and I'm fairly sure it's up to no good." Harry Dresden (Jim Butcher)


imin
Valinor


Feb 19 2013, 3:41pm

Post #152 of 165 (364 views)
Shortcut
I thought HFR was pretty good overall [In reply to] Can't Post

I hope this doesn't sound weird or too personal but do you have to wear glasses or are you ok without?

I don't wear glasses but i know my eyesight is getting worse and one day soon i will probably need to for some things. I wonder if this has had an impact on how i view HFR? Maybe my eyesight is good enough to see a difference between 24 and 48fps but not good enough for it to make a massive difference like it does for others.

For me the biggest obstacle to 48fps is the price. It was only shown in 3d IMAX near me when in 48fps and those tickets are 2.5 times the cost of a regular ticket so it would get really expensive for me to go see a film more than a couple of times. if it were the same price i think i would go see it in 48fps.


Old Toby
Gondor


Feb 19 2013, 4:01pm

Post #153 of 165 (362 views)
Shortcut
Yes, I do wear glasses [In reply to] Can't Post

But I also wear contacts, so when I went to the 3D HFR showings, I always wore my contacts. My friends who wear glasses said that they had no problem using the 3D glasses over their own glasses though, and thoroughly enjoyed the 3D HFR.

Here they didn't show the HFR in IMAX, which is weird, but the IMAX theater here only showed it in regular 3D, so I never went. The 3D HFR shows I went to all were at regular, but large screen, theaters, so although I paid a few dollars more, it wasn't as expensive as the IMAX. Which of course means I could go see it even MORE times!! LOL!

"Age is always advancing and I'm fairly sure it's up to no good." Harry Dresden (Jim Butcher)


Elessar
Valinor


Feb 19 2013, 4:12pm

Post #154 of 165 (371 views)
Shortcut
IMDB [In reply to] Can't Post

I do like IMDB for movie info and to see some trailer info as well. That I agree with you 110% on is its handy for that type of movie information.

I can imagine that was a fun debate. lol

I think we have a better chance here. lol Cool



Elessar
Valinor


Feb 19 2013, 4:14pm

Post #155 of 165 (389 views)
Shortcut
RT [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't recall the boads much. I think I peaked in on it a few times but didn't see anything that wanted to keep me around. My issue with RT is the ciritics they have post reviews. Sometimes I swear they pick people who have no clue about the subject at all. Its kind of annoying.



(This post was edited by Elessar on Feb 19 2013, 4:14pm)


Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea

Feb 19 2013, 4:38pm

Post #156 of 165 (388 views)
Shortcut
Critics [In reply to] Can't Post

I find critics annoying period and I say that whether they are good or bad reviews. I just have never put much stock one way or the other in a critics review. They seem to focus, for good or bad, on too much that I just don't care about. Details of this that and the other thing. There are some that wax poetic about someone's awesome performance but then I go see the film and it's boring as all get out (subject matter). That one with Jennifer Anniston (i forget the name of it now) back in the day when ROTK was released was that way. I read a bunch of reviews that were talking about how great it was and I was bored.

So now I just decide if it's something I might want to see. And when I see it it's very simple. Did I enjoy it or not. It's the director's vision, whether adapated or original screenplay, and I just decide for myself if I enjoyed it, if it was interesting or fun etc. I don't care about the picayune details (I'm in to details just not an over emphasis one way or the other).

Was it emotionally engaging? Did I like the characters? Was it entertaining? Those are the things (big picture) I go for as a viewer. I couldn't care less whether Variety, The Guardian, The New York Times or some blogger in his or her mom's basement tells me about it or not.


Elessar
Valinor


Feb 19 2013, 5:15pm

Post #157 of 165 (345 views)
Shortcut
Critics/Reviews [In reply to] Can't Post

I enjoy reading reviews by anyone one way or the other as long as that person shows they understand the material. You don't have to know the genre like the back of your hand but at least know The Hobbit isn't and wasn't going to be like The Lord of the Rings. So many people expected that and I think that's on them for not knowing better. Of course you had some that also blamed the trilogy, 48 fps, or even a bias against the genre itself as reasons they were negative. If someone says they have NO problems with a movie at all that can be as much of a red flag.



macfalk
Valinor


Feb 19 2013, 5:22pm

Post #158 of 165 (344 views)
Shortcut
Critics who doesn't even try to understand the material... [In reply to] Can't Post

Have as much value to me as the standard IMDB forum troll. Like the so called "critic" who whined about an "annoying detour to Rivendell". There is no denying that there were many armchair critics with undeserved attention who wanted The Hobbit to fail.



The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.


Elessar
Valinor


Feb 19 2013, 5:30pm

Post #159 of 165 (335 views)
Shortcut
I'm with ya 110% [In reply to] Can't Post

 



AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Feb 19 2013, 11:11pm

Post #160 of 165 (309 views)
Shortcut
It is alot for a usual blockbuster, but average for a big blockbuster. [In reply to] Can't Post

Normal blockbuster faire is 150 to 250 million. The BIG, fan driven, mega blockbusters run 250 Million domestic, up to about 400 million, with the rare oddity like Avengers, which frankly may be the single biggest one run domestic intake I have ever heard of, not taking inflation into account. lol

But this isn't totally surprising either. Certain superheroes do the best at the box office. In the 21st century, Batman, Spiderman and Ironman ( I much prefer Superman, The Hulk and Thor, but I clearly don't speak for everyone lol), are the masters of Boxoffice loot and booty capitalizing, followed by Enchanted Realms heavyweights like The Lord of The Rings, Harry Potter and The Hobbit (these may have been supplanted by the new Hugner Games craze), followed by the Twilight movies (with some give and take for The Potters and a one shot for the first Narnia film), followed by the less popular but still lucrative Superheroes and other stand alone type blockbusters, including Will Smith movies and Animated films with heavy promotion saturation.

Hobbit did, frankly, less well than I hoped but it also did much better than I feared, but I never expected it would challenge Avengers after the heap of money that made. In a best case scenario There and Back Again may, with last film draw, heightened drama/gravitas, a lingering trace of Rings film acclaim plus new audiences drawn by the more simple charm of The Hobbit, (remember, not everyone in the Rings audience was in the Hobbit audience, but the reverse is also the case), and also with less trash talk from critics, less 48 frame noise and fewer exaggerated expectations to mar the opening reception, make upwards of 450 to 500 million. But we shall see.

"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


imin
Valinor


Feb 19 2013, 11:32pm

Post #161 of 165 (291 views)
Shortcut
Ah ok [In reply to] Can't Post

I was just wondering if it were my own eyes that were kinda letting me down. Seems weird how it really is just random as to how much we loved it. I really liked it for fast moving action but when there was lots of characters as CGI i felt they were more obvious in 48fps - though some people have the exact opposite!

Maybe it's just down to the individual cinema we see the films in?

I did get to see it in real3d which is just standard 24fps 3d. I would like to see non imax hfr to see if the difference was caused by imax or the hfr.

And save about $7!


imin
Valinor


Feb 19 2013, 11:34pm

Post #162 of 165 (291 views)
Shortcut
I agree [In reply to] Can't Post

I think an informed opinion is better than an uninformed opinion and critics who you know have read the books or at the very least tried to understand it, i hold to have more weight than someone who hasn't.


imin
Valinor


Feb 19 2013, 11:41pm

Post #163 of 165 (296 views)
Shortcut
Yeah i agree [In reply to] Can't Post

I think if you were to make the perfect movie for BO success. I would make one about transforming pirates who can walk around in avatars, in middle earth using wands and its animated.

That would make a killing Tongue


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Feb 20 2013, 4:01am

Post #164 of 165 (269 views)
Shortcut
Lol. Indeed. And the old Wizard vies for the hand of the Elf Lady, who is also a vampire [In reply to] Can't Post

,with a werewolf Elf-Lord who is not under the dominion of Sauron. lol And Thror will test his hammer against the mace of Sauron, after defeating his servant Bane.

As I said, though, The Hobbit did less than I hoped, but did much better than my fears. "For my hope was founded on a fat man in Bree, and my fear was based on the cunning and malice of Sauron. . . but fat men who sell ale have many calls to answer, and the power of Sauron is still less than fear makes it." lol

"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


totoro
Lorien

Feb 21 2013, 2:31am

Post #165 of 165 (299 views)
Shortcut
AUJ did much better than I expected [In reply to] Can't Post

I saw it as a fourth film in a finite series of 6 films. I thought that meant it would do worse than FotR. I did not feel like this was going to follow the Star Wars prequel model, which blew the BO away with the much-anticipated first prequel film; then people kinda thought it sucked and it lost a lot of fans for film 2. Harry Potter seemed like a better model, which was kind of U-shaped with the first and last being big (finite series).

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 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.