If by biggest we mean the “most over-indulgently long,” then we will already have a winner for this year’s biggest film draw, although we don’t mean that so we need to look a little deeper in to the intricacies of the film to decide how good it could be… because that is the high-brow level of journalism we are committed to at WhatCulture!.
We obviously have the added excitement of this being the second film in a purely creative only trilogy, so we must prepare ourselves for an uneven affair as we do the tricky middle of a haphazard three-way. Despite this we must remain optimistic as we embrace a film that had the working titles The Hobbit and The Easy Pay Cheque and The Hobbit and The Loss of All Integrity. Bring it on!
What Could Be Awesome About It:
Despite The Hobbit being, well… naff, there were positives to be had that could redeem its future installments. Martin Freeman was delightful as Bilbo and future room to stretch his legs now he’s out of the “accept me Dwarves!” stage will be welcome as he was the one character it wasn’t impossible to like
On that note it would be interesting to see the dwarves developed beyond the level of occasional line dispensers and bad make up conaseurs into actual people it’s worth being interested in like The Fellowship was. On top of that, I found the 48FPS to be a nice feature in the level of depth it gave the now almost-entirely CGIed surrounding and enemies. On top of this, it will be exciting to see the Necromancer become a strong figure and a threat a lot more interesting than “the biggest Orc.”
What Could Suck About It:
It will be too long, and that we can guarantee. On top of this, there’s the fact that whilst the 48fps looks brilliant when everything is still, it can’t quite comprehend motion like a normal film should, and unless there is a significant technological advance in this area it will still look ridiculous. Also it will be too long, in case you didn’t know.
Furthermore, as far as I am aware there will be no Gollum in this edition of the movie, which is a shame considering the only time anything worthwhile was happening on screen was his and Bilbo’s riddle scene and his absence will be sorely missed. Did I mention it will be too long?
Finally, An Unexpected Journey built absolutely nothing around the characters, which is peculiar considering it lasted nigh on 8 months, therefore they are either going to be developed in this film or they will be ignored again, making it so difficult to care about anyone who isn’t Bilbo, who we know lives anyway. Also, it’s going to be too long.
Predicted Star Rating: 2/5
Missing the best aspects of the first whilst most likely only replacing it with more length. Visuals may be a saving grace and more of the necromancer might help make a film much more compelling than the first.
Agree or disagree? Looking forward to continuing the unexpected journey? Let us know in the comments section below.
We are currently seeking The Hobbit contributors on WhatCulture. To find out more about the perks of being a The Hobbit contributor, click here.
35 Comments
Since I thought the 1st film was a 5/5 film, I’ll say this one will be as well
This website needs a spelling and grammar editor.
You call this an article? it’s stuffed with nonsense. Everyone who haven’t read the Hobbit, don’t read this. The trilogy will be pure magic. And what is too long, dear author, please let the audience decide.
A Tolkien fan.
Why does every argument defending The Hobbit immediately go to the books? I’m not reviewing/previewing the book. I’m doing the movies, and the first movie was terrible and if they can manage to craft a film that appeals to someone who hasn’t already read the book then they’ve missed a huge chunk of what a successful adaptation should be.
Because the movie is based off the books?
How can you sit here and judge a movie which is based off of a book that you have never read? You’re nothing more than our news media spitting out their judgements on current events with having the actual truthful story. You’re such an amateur.
Wow, what a giant douche. You whined endlessly about the length even though most people such as me and countless others weren’t even aware of the time passing. Plus films like TDKR, Les Mis, Lincoln etc. were all just as long, so you can’t really complain about length.
“The Hobbit and The Easy Pay Cheque and The Hobbit and The Loss of All Integrity. ”
Again, what a douche. PJ stated that he had too much footage for just 2 films. You’re clearly the type that was annoyed about the decision to turn it into a trilogy and made up your mind on The Hobbit before you even saw it. Newsflash- even if it had 2 films, the 1st part would’ve been what we got anyway. You said it was “naff” and a bunch of other crap as if your view is the definitive one but the majority of people liked it-8.3/10 on IMDb from 193,000 voters, 8.4 on RT from 149,000 people even the average critic rating on RT of 6.6 isn’t bad, more so when you take out the ridiculous and unashamedly biased reviewers that gave it scores like 1.5/5, focusing on the HFR and reviewing the actual film in less than a paragraph. It was flawed but I enjoyed it.
Wow, what a giant douche. You whined endlessly about the length even though most people such as me and countless others weren’t even aware of the time passing. Plus films like TDKR, Les Mis, Lincoln etc. were all just as long, so you can’t really complain about length.
“The Hobbit and The Easy Pay Cheque and The Hobbit and The Loss of All Integrity. ”
Again, what a douche. PJ stated that he had too much footage for just 2 films. You’re clearly the type that was annoyed about the decision to turn it into a trilogy and made up your mind on The Hobbit before you even saw it. Newsflash- even if it had 2 films, the 1st part would’ve been what we got anyway. You said it was “naff” and a bunch of other crap as if your view is the definitive one but the majority of people liked it-8.3 on IMDb from near 200,000 and 8.4 on RT, even the average critic rating on RT of 6.6 isn’t bad, especially when you take out the ridiculous and unashamedly biased reviewers that gave it scores like 1.5/5. It was flawed but I enjoyed it.
Wow, what a giant d*uche. You whined endlessly about the length even though most people such as me and countless others weren’t even aware of the time passing. Plus films like TDKR, Les Mis, Lincoln etc. were all just as long, so you can’t really complain about length.
“The Hobbit and The Easy Pay Cheque and The Hobbit and The Loss of All Integrity. ”
Again, what a d*uche. PJ stated that he had too much footage for just 2 films. You’re clearly the type that was annoyed about the decision to turn it into a trilogy and made up your mind on The Hobbit before you even saw it. Newsflash- even if it had 2 films, the 1st part would’ve been what we got anyway. You said it was “naff” and a bunch of other crap as if your view is the definitive one but the majority of people liked it-8.3 on IMDb from near 200,000 and 8.4 on RT, even the average critic rating on RT of 6.6 isn’t bad, especially when you take out the ridiculous and unashamedly biased reviewers that gave it scores like 1.5/5. It was flawed but I enjoyed it.
Tbh everyone is entitled to their opinion, its probably 95% liked and 5% disliked the hobbit. I thought the Hobbit was brilliant and felt like id been dragged back into Peter Jacksons version. Luke is clearly in the 5% but isnt he allowed to be? Its his choice. The only downside to this article is calling the Hobbit terrible. That sir, i dont agree with.
Sooo true on imdb 90.5 of people gave it 7 and above and if you count the 6 witch are 4.5 it is 95.. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903624/ratings
Ok first off this article was a complete waste of time to read because not a word if this crap is true lets begin. The movies are long yes its true but maybe if you payed attention and quit picking your nose youd understand. And about gollum wtf? Itll be sad? Gollum isnt even in the hobbit after the game if riddles that is his only part so quit complaining about it. Oh and if this idiot had actually read the book it does hardly elaborate on the dwarves at al besides a few and thorin. Some of the dwarves only talk a couple of times, and it does really even describe them besides thorin and maybe a few other. Personally i just read the book and saw the movie and it was pretty frikin close the book. It was good so before you star complaining id at least try to get the facts right.
What if this idiot became aware that we’re reviewing the movies, not the books and what happens in the book shouldn’t be used as an explanation for the naff parts of the movie. Yes Gollum not being in it will sad because that was the films best bit, remove a films best aspects and a sequel will be worse.
Also you can’t tell me none of this is true, it’s an opinion, I’m not implying its fact.
You call the film ‘Naff’ – and the way it is phrased not only intimates that you are stating fact, but also general consensus. The film may have got a mixed critical reception but nearly 200k votes on imdb with an average of 8.3/10 is nowhere near ‘naff’. Looks like you are in the minority on this, and in no way is this touched upon in the article which is misleading to say the least. You are entitled to an opinion though, I spose :)
Lmfao this guy Luke is so pathetic!!!moans that the film is to long yet TDKR was longer and was utter abysmal compared to dark knight and Heath ledger yet this tool gave it 5/5!!!
Also the 2 biggest movies of all time avatar and titanic are both over 3 hours long u turd!people enjoy long movies or avatar aid have not grossed 2.9 billion!!
Funny how reviewers like u bash the film yet in 5 weeks it has already grossed 920 million and will crack the 1 billion barrier soon earning more than fellowship of the ring!!
Seriously no one cares about pathetic reviewers like yourself who talk utter crap about movies,and of course it should be judged on the book as its a book to film to adaption!!!derr!!!
The desolation of smaug will be better than an unexpected journey so ur idiotic 2/5 for it means nothing as people don’t care what moronic reviewers say as if they did they wud never go to the movies!!!
I’m aware they were long movies, but they were long because the writers filled it with narrative building stuff. Not padding to drag it out for a trilogy.
i wanted to add, that these other films are long yes.
the Hobbit is not just long it’s rediculessly long.
the book itself is smaller than the first LOTR and that made it
in one movie.
the Hobbit is not just 3 hours long it will be 9 friggin hours long,i have to agree with stevenson..
the thing is, i will enjoy the movie just because i know i will BUT i refuse to watch it or spend a dime on it because this idiot just wants to sucker everyone out of their $$$ by making a 3 part movie that should clearly be a 3h motion picture.. i will wait for the DVD to come out and will even buy the pre-viewd copies at the video store just so he gets less of my $$ and wait until 2015 to sit and enjoy the whole thing with out having to wait. I’ve read the book a few times so no needto rush out and see all the invented scenes he decided to add.. Jackson will never learn to just follow the the books story line.. the books are amazing, just follow the damn book
Avatar had a narrative? I was not informed of this.
“I’m aware they were long movies, but they were long because the writers filled it with narrative building stuff. Not padding to drag it out for a trilogy.”
Are you this naive? How else do you build a magnificent trilogy, without the proper “narrative building” foundation to hold it? Terrible article/review by the way
Thank you snake this is exactly what im saying! The movie is based off the book so yes you cant talk about the movie so you cant say the book has nothing to do with it! And yes the riddles scene was very awesome but you cant say that the rest will be bad because of him not being in it. Its not in the book so if he would be in it again it would completely go against the book which it is BASED off of. And yeah ive read the book it just gets better the next two movies will be amazing blockbusters.
I’m just hoping Peter Jackson will decide to forgo the 48fps and just either film on digital or film. I would say he shouldn’t put it out in 3D but the studio will probably force that to make the most money. I still would prefer a Guillermo del Toro two part Hobbit
You need to get something for that ADD. Drugs can do wonders these days…
Scoring a film before it has been released? Good job, Stevenson. By your logic I am rating the new Star Wars Trilogy 1 out of 1000, just because the previous trilogy was, as you put it “naff”. Don’t quit your day job, Stevenson…whatever that is.
You miss my point, it’s a prediction, it could be better, it could be worse. I am piecing together all the information we have so far which has to be: it’s directed by Peter Jackson, written by him, and will be a direct sequel to the naff one we saw a couple of weeks ago.
The next Star Wars films will have a different writer, different director, different story and therefore could be something completely amazing compared to the prequels, or it will miss the heart of the original story and the feel of Lucas’ universe. – Balanced view. Like the whole ‘what could be awesome about it’ and ‘what could suck about it’ parts of this article.
“You miss my point, it’s a prediction, it could be better, it could be worse. I am piecing together all the information we have so far…”
Missed your point? You already gave it a 2/5! Quit digging Luke, you’re in a hole
I wouldn’t write off ‘The Desolation of Smaug’ until I’ve actually seen it, but in saying that, I believe Luke will be proven correct in that it will indeed be too long as ‘An Unexpected Journey’ was also…whilst still being a fantastically entertaining film!
Lest we forget that Sir Peter of Jackson has final cut and almost-total deference on this project in the way he didn’t on ‘The Lord of the Rings’, meaning he won’t be forced by the studio(s) to bring it in under a set running time, which by extension means scenes included in the theatrical cut that are clearly surplus to requirements but P.J. simply couldn’t bear to lose… and that’s not even getting into the whole appendices argument, but if you insist…
I still firmly believe ‘The Hobbit’ could and indeed SHOULD have been made as two films of three hours each (a little under for ‘An Unexpected Journey’ and a little over for ‘There and Back Again’), with the first film ending with the dwarves’ capture by the Elven King (the exact half-way point of the book), and the second and final film beginning with (inevitable prologue aside) Bilbo’s memorable rescue of his colleagues, and after that, onto the showdown with Smaug and the climactic Battle of Five Armies. There should only be a very small amount of appendices material included to smooth over the narrative, thereby keeping the (largely) bright, brisk, and breezy tone that made Tolkien’s book so memorable and beloved rather than trying to turn it into a full-blown epic which it isn’t…
…just my humble opinion of course…
Luke, I am going to attempt to be constructive here. I must start by telling you that as an editor I would not have published this – I would have asked you to go back to the drawing board or just refused to publish it.
Despite what you thought of An Unexpected Journey you need to treat this movie, that is almost certainly going to take in > USD 900m at the Box Office, with some critical and professional respect. That doesn’t mean fawning over it, but it means saying something more than “it will be too long” (effectively 6 times, I counted), in a vain effort to let humour make up for the poor quality and little substance contained in the article.
Why is it poor quality? I am going to do what you should have done -> I am going to point out the critical flaws in this article that make it a contender for worst article I have read on the site this year:
- As stated above, attempts to use humour (mentions length 6 times) to mask any real critical assessment or depth.
- Because you did next to no research. Your comments about not knowing if Gollum will be included in the movie are downright embarrassing- can’t you just google it? This is not a book review of course (as you are keen to point out in the comments), but I’d expect you to at least pay some lip service to the books and source material. A movie adaption of this magnitude needs to mention the source material- if it’s going to be a good review. Your off-hand comments about the necromancer also smack of you having little idea what you are talking about. I speak to people who hate this movie who are avid Tolkien fans- and they explain in an articulate and professional manner why the movie is not good. Alas, this article does not do this.
“Conaseurs”? In an article that is barely 8 paragraphs long and devoid of effort you can’t use spell-check?
“so we must prepare ourselves for an uneven affair as we do the tricky middle of a haphazard three-way” & “a threat a lot more interesting than” —-> just poor grammar… “Do” the tricky middle ground? Really?
“will be welcome as he was the one character it wasn’t impossible to like” No full-stop at the end of the sentence?
Please Luke – I see good articles here on this site but if you’re going to right a pre-review for one of the most highly anticipated movies of 2013 pay the subject matter some respect and at least justify your expected 2/5 stars hammering with more than “did we mention it will be too long” x 6. The editor is at fault too and I’d want to know his comments if he can be kind enough to respond. Shouldn’t someone who knows how to write and understands Tolkien and understand film be writing an article like this.
“The Loss of All Integrity…” Somewhat ironic that you’d say this.
“…because that is the high-brow level of journalism we are committed to at WhatCulture!.” Exclamation with a full-stop after it? And a comment that the rest of the article makes a mockery of. An A-level English Lit student with no knowledge of Tolkien and a computer with the internet could have come up with a better constructed article in less than an hour. Very disappointing- Whatculture, you yourself, Tolkien- all deserve better.
Please consider what I said and don’t react really negatively (abusing your readers like you did in the other comments- totally unprofessional) as I saw you do in the past. I’d also appreciate it if you respond to these comments about this article.
Take this same site’s guy’s opinion – no less valid than yours, but the difference is that he makes a well reasoned and valid case for why he loves the movie:
http://whatculture.com/film/8-reasons-why-the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-is-my-favourite-movie-of-2012.php
If you take what I’ve said on board rather than throwing your toys out the pram then you will be a better writer. This is a fact, not an opinion.
I should also point out that when an article gets this many comments, through so little views, with so few ‘likes’- that is the public speaking and saying this is not a good piece of writing. The world is not against you. Listen to them. You are young (not a bag thing by the way) and this means you have time to learn to hone your craft for the better, if I could look back at myself I would tell me listen more to advice.
And I promise you: I am not trying to rob you- I’m trying to help you.
Wow Luke Stevenson in another worthless article shocker. You must be going for the site record, which I imagine is pretty damn high.
I’d like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on maintaining the record for most worthless commenter. I would say I’m sure your friends are pleased for you, but you having any would be a shock.
I think you’re closer to being the most worthless commenter.
And at least he didn’t spend an hour or more writing bullsh** like you did, excluding your comments.
I was going to leave a commit on my disagreement with your article, but I believe pussycatArwin says all that need be said. Good luck with a career man. I mean that!
Youll wait til 2015 so you wont have to spend 8 bucks haha wow…your such a loser lol and the reason the movies are so long and that there will ne 3 is that the books moves at a much faster rate than the LOTR and it has hardly the detail. If it wasnt as long as it was and just moved along people would be so lost that it wouldnt even be funny. People dont realize what all you have to put into to make a good movie if you moved at that pave youd be lost. Of course this is my opinion but i think it was perfect and had a perfect amout of time for fil itself. 3 movies will be great i think. If your not a fan of J.R.R tolkien .
, you wont understand.
LMAO at this retarrd so called writer!!!funny how lots of critics bashed this movie for being to long,48fps lark and was not like LOTR,yet it is a totally different story just set in the same middle earth!!
What is even more hilarious in that just over 5 weeks the hobbit as grossed over 940 million worldwide and goes to show u that no one ever listens to pathetic critics!!
I remember when avatar trailer came out,morons like Luke and other critics said it would fail……then it took 2.8 billion at the box office and is the biggest grossing move ever!!!
Moral of the story critics don’t know s..t!!and say what they say for attention!!i suggest Luke goes and watches his best movie Katy Perry to which he gave 4/5!!lmao
Luke,
Oh dear. I gave up after the first couple of sentences. Maybe you could write for Private Eye?
‘The loss of all integrity’, the irony!
You’re whining and moaning about the film being too long. I’m not surprised, you seem to have the attention span of a squirrel the way you repeatedly say ‘it’s too long’ not sure if it’s failed attempt at being funny or just poor reviewing which is even more abundant. If only two films had been planned each would be even longer, you would’ve had a bloody field day.
Seriously the argument that this is a ploy to make more money by movie-makers is getting ridiculous now. There’s enough material in the books to make a trilogy. There were lines from the books that I instantly recognised. Gandalf has his own journey aside from guiding Bilbo and the Dwarves. Characters are reprising roles from the LOTR which I believe is a good thing as it can add to Necromancer section of the story. How the hell can THIRTEEN new MAIN characters be developed on screen for a mere 3 hour film. The more screen time they have the better in my opinion. Plus Beorn, Bard the Bowman etc will be in the next film as new characters (if you read the book Bard is an integral figure in the Battle of the 5 Armies). Legolas makes a reappearence and his dad Thranduil is also an important antagonist in the film especially with the back sotry with Thorin. These are all reasons why the next film can be even better than the first and you have no idea of what I’m talking about because you reviewed something with zero knowledge of its source material. This is made even more clear because you keep whining that Gollum won’t be in the next film. So what if he isn’t? If only one film was made he would’ve only appeared in the Riddles scene (unless they show how he’s captured by the elves which is important in the LOTR).
‘Line dispensers and “conaseurs” of bad make up’? Tolkien rarely described the dwarves in huge detail except for Bombur being the fattest and Dori being the strongest in the book. I found the dwarves really entertaining, PJ had to make each dwarf completely unique and recogniseable at first glance and he did a good job, there was a decent balance between comic relief and seriousness in places.
Luke, why am I not surprised you didn’t read the Hobbit?
This review is terribly written and you have no idea how to phrase or punctuate a decent sentence. This is exactly the type of amateurish, unedited web spam that Google’s next few updates should eliminate from search results.