druv10 Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) What should have he done? Cancel 48fps and say "sorry, it was a mistake"? Be real.Someone believing in something is not ego. And they have already invested in it, they might as well show it. It's only in rather few theaters anyway.Critics hated it and that showed in their reviews. Edited December 22, 2012 by druv10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfirebird2008 Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 What should have he done? Cancel 48fps and say "sorry, it was a mistake"? Be real.Don't show it to critics. They knew back in April that the critics and bloggers had a very negative reaction to 10 minutes of preview footage in 48 fps. So show them only the 24 fps versions of the film (2D/regular 3D). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 So maybe it would have had 10 percentage points more on RT? Would that change anything? Not really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Gittes Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 I agree about it being disappointing but that's bullshit. It would not have done better had it been 2 movies.If it had been two movies, I think it would have been less stretched out and more focused, in which case people would have liked it more, in which case it would have had better legs and WOM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Or maybe not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatebox Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) I agree about it being disappointing but that's bullshit. It would not have done better had it been 2 movies.He would have had to compress the story, thus have less of a meandering pace that most people seem to be complaining about. I haven't seen it but that's by far the biggest bone of contention. Edited December 22, 2012 by Hatebox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmnerdjamie Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) It would been better as one movie. Plain and simple. As originally planned. Then Jackson could fuck around with this excesses on the untitled Lord of the Rings "Bridge" film. Edited December 22, 2012 by filmnerdjamie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) One Hobbit movie would have sucked. So much of the story would have been untold. Edited December 22, 2012 by Elessar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yads Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) One Hobbit movie would have sucked.I would have thought a 3 hour theatrical and 4 hour extended Hobbit movie would have been about right. IMO the plot of AUJ is stretched way too thin. Like butter spread over too much bread. Or something. Edited December 22, 2012 by yads Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Marston Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 It should have been left as two movies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmnerdjamie Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 I would have thought a 3 hour theatrical and 4 hour extended Hobbit movie would have been about right.Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJohn Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Two movies seems like the most appropriate. One would not have been enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kayumanggi Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 It is bombing. 5M OW, 6.5M 5 days total.Is "bombing" the appropriate term? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Futurist Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Critics hated it and that showed in their reviews.Critics are whiney bitches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Gittes Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 There shouldn't have been any bridge films. There's just enough in the story for two films, 120-150 minutes each, the first one ending somewhere during the giant-spiders section, the second one being primarily about Smaug, that town that he attacks, and the battle of the five armies. Oh, and no Necromant stuff as well as Holm/Wood/Blanchett/Lee fan service. All directed by Guillermo Del Toro... I absolutely love and admire LOTR to its very last bits, but when Jackson tried to recreate that magic while dealing with a story that demanded a much different approach, that's where he made the most serious mistake he could have made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ali Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 #2 with a bullet--Paramount's JACK REACHER tracked down $5M in its debut. Judd Apatow's sort-of-sequel was sort-of-soft. THIS IS 40 scored $3.7M Friday & will likely hit $13M for the weekend. http://www.worldofkj...815879#p1815879 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dark Alfred Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 What should have he done? Cancel 48fps and say "sorry, it was a mistake"? Be real.Someone believing in something is not ego. And they have already invested in it, they might as well show it. It's only in rather few theaters anyway. Yes. He should have cancel 48fps and do it properly with the next one. Also making one good film instead of spending three years of shooting, just because he loves to spend time in NZ would have helped. It's absolutely ridiculous The Hobbit is shorter than any LOTR book, but it gets three films. He should have done 6 LOTR films instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olive Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 $115k & huge $23k avg FRI for ZeroDarkThirty in just 5 thtrs. $344k & $69k avg in 1st 3days WED-FRI. Scorching start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Shorts Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Agreed. I agree about it being disappointing but that's bullshit. It would not have done better had it been 2 movies. What should have he done? Cancel 48fps and say "sorry, it was a mistake"? Be real.Someone believing in something is not ego. And they have already invested in it, they might as well show it. It's only in rather few theaters anyway. He won't. As he shouldn't. Some people, you know, like it.Multiquote is your friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alana Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 I rewatched the LOTR trilogy last weekend and really wondered if I would spend so much time on a trilogy on the hobbit. I would watch 2 maybe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
