BOX OFFICE: Peter Jackson's THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY Passes $500M Worldwide

BOX OFFICE: Peter Jackson's THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY Passes $500M Worldwide

While many think that the Peter Jackson-directed prequel The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey has been underperforming for the last two weeks, the film is still doing good business, especially overseas, as it just passed the $500 million mark at the global box office. Check out the press release...

BURBANK, CA, December 27, 2012 – The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey has surpassed the $500 million benchmark at the worldwide box office. To date, the blockbuster has earned an estimated $179.7 million domestically. In addition, on the heels of its record-breaking release in Australia — the biggest Boxing Day opening of all time — The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey has grossed an estimated $344 million internationally, for a staggering global total of $523.7 million, and still steadily climbing. The joint announcement was made today by Toby Emmerich, President and Chief Operating Officer, New Line Cinema; Gary Barber, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios; Dan Fellman, President of Domestic Distribution, Warner Bros. Pictures; and Veronika Kwan Vandenberg, President of International Distribution, Warner Bros. Pictures. Aa production of New Line Cinema and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) Pictures, it’s the acclaimed first film in Oscar®-winning filmmaker Peter Jackson’s epic The Hobbit Trilogy, based on the timeless novel by J.R.R. Tolkien.

The ensemble cast includes Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Hugo Weaving, Andy Serkis, Richard Armitage, John Bell, Jed Brophy, Adam Brown, John Callen, Luke Evans, Stephen Fry, Ryan Gage, Mark Hadlow, Peter Hambleton, Barry Humphries, Stephen Hunter, William Kircher, Evangeline Lilly, Sylvester McCoy, Bret McKenzie, Graham McTavish, Mike Mizrahi, James Nesbitt, Dean O’Gorman, Lee Pace, Mikael Persbrandt, Conan Stevens, Ken Stott, Jeffrey Thomas, and Aidan Turner, Elijah Wood, Orlando Bloom, Ian Holm, Christopher Lee and Cate Blanchett. The Hobbit is now playing in theatres.

Posted By:
Member Since 2/9/2009
Filed Under "Fantasy" 12/27/2012
DISCLAIMER: This article was submitted by a volunteer contributor who has agreed to our code of conduct. is protected from liability under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) and "safe harbor" provisions. CBM will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please contact us for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. You may also learn more about our copyright and trademark policies HERE.
1 2
ManofSteel23 - 12/27/2012, 12:22 PM
brilliant film,cant wait for the blu-ray!
JDUKE25 - 12/27/2012, 12:24 PM
It was a good movie. Didn't blow me away or anything, but it was good.

Going to see Les Miserables tonight, can't wait to see it.
HavocPrime - 12/27/2012, 12:26 PM
Brilliant start to a new trilogy, really looking forward to seeing the next installments
UltimaRex - 12/27/2012, 12:27 PM
Half a billion dollars is "underperforming".






longbowhunter - 12/27/2012, 12:29 PM
Saw it with my son last night. Really enjoyed the movie.
jimpinto24 - 12/27/2012, 12:32 PM
Great! The Hobbit was amazing!
TheAbomination - 12/27/2012, 12:34 PM
If anyone thinks this film is "under-performing," they're out of their f*ucking mind. Sure, it's having Avengers or TDKR success right now, but that doesn't mean it's under-performing.
ReeferInferno - 12/27/2012, 12:35 PM
can't wait, gonna see it tomorrow!!
MartianSupermanhunter22 - 12/27/2012, 12:38 PM
This movie was so good. Also finished reading the hobbit today. I can definitely understand why it has been stretched to three films. Quite a bit actually takes place.
Rambaldi47 - 12/27/2012, 12:41 PM
The Hobbit is anything but a flop. One, people don't seem to understand that the box office is not what it used to be. International totals matter quite a bit! And two, if a movie isn't massive right out the gate like Avengers, Dark Knight, etc. people think it's underperforming. It's only been out for 2 weeks!
Maximus101 - 12/27/2012, 1:16 PM
Not surprising at all is it? Was an ok movies definitely not one of my top movies for this year.
eleven59 - 12/27/2012, 1:16 PM
Just got back from a second showing. Took nephews. Said they liked it and was great to explain things to them..
ToTheManInTheColdSweat - 12/27/2012, 1:25 PM
Well deserved, disappointing for me i give it a "B", but still good.
StarkRaving - 12/27/2012, 1:49 PM
It's considered to be underperforming because its second weekend box office dropped 57 percent from last weekend. More importantly, The Hobbit's 10-day gross is lower than that of The Return of the King and The Two Towers, which is a big disappointment considering inflation over the past ten years and 3D/IMAX ticket prices.
longbowhunter - 12/27/2012, 1:57 PM
I went during a matinee in a snow storm and the theater had a ridiculous amount of people there.
Facade - 12/27/2012, 2:12 PM
@WolvieCBM..."underperforming for the last two weeks" um, Hobbit's opening weekend blew LOTR numbers outta the water! Sure it had the largest drop compared to LOTR, but it had greater competition at the box office of the Tolkien series, too (i.e.. Les Mis is the longest running plays in London/4th best broadway show). Not to mention it's a prequel!
Nomis1800 - 12/27/2012, 2:16 PM
Great! Up to the one BILLION!!!!!! Going to see this again very soon and I wonder... Is there going to be a HFR blu-ray, without 3D?
kakinurmawth - 12/27/2012, 2:40 PM
@Nomis: Hahaha seriously right? Or perhaps 3D without HFR jesus how many formats can you release a movie in

All jokin aside I really want to see this movie. I was like a little kid again as I watched the LOTR movies. If its just half as good as those i will be content.
billytwohats - 12/27/2012, 2:59 PM
3 movies Jackson? Shame on you!
Fogs - 12/27/2012, 3:16 PM
Gotta watch it again.
AnungUnRama - 12/27/2012, 3:29 PM
The poor US numbers make me worry that this movie will hit 1 Billion. But I would like it to, as this would mean Jackson's Tolkien franchise would - calculated per movie - stay the most successful movie franchise; even ahead of Potter.

Do it Peter, stay epic, stay epic dude.
graveyardtramp - 12/27/2012, 3:32 PM
Well the term 'disappointing' is always relative when it comes to box-office...when a movie costs a reported 250+ million to produce (plus promotion) and is the first in a proposed trilogy, I can see how $500 million would be considered a let-down in many circles, the studios may not want to blow another 250+ million on a sequel.
StarkRaving - 12/27/2012, 3:53 PM
@timotey, the movie industry expected The Hobbit to have a stronger domestic boxoffice take by this point, based on their experience with LotR. The 57 percent drop in its box office take this weekend suggest that it will take in around $280 million during its domestic run, which is lower than any of the Lord of the Rings movies, including FotR. If this first Hobbit film meets current projections, it will wind up earning less than Hunger Games, Skyfall or The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part 2.

Whether or not the industry is daft for having higher expectations, the fact is that they are disappointed with these results.

thanos83 - 12/27/2012, 4:33 PM
loved this movie..warts and all(mirrors fellowship of the ring 2 much.the writers should trust their audience more...we dont need to be constantly reminded why we liked the previous trilogy..this is "one" of the reasons the dark knight rises was so bad,(among many))i hope it does well, so Jackson can continue to develop the other two films without any heavy ornegligible studio interference
thanos83 - 12/27/2012, 4:39 PM
Love radgast btw..I hope he's with the white councell when they face down sauron..u guys that are comparinging him 2 jar jar are some real pussys...
clag - 12/27/2012, 4:40 PM
i'd like to see it get to a billion but i'm not sure if it can... fingers crossed
Robe - 12/27/2012, 5:02 PM
So what if it only makes 280m in N. America?
That is still number 6 in the Box Office for N. America 2012.
Factor in the rest of the world, then DVD, TV sales and merchandise and no worries.
Ranger14 - 12/27/2012, 6:02 PM
I've got two tickets for Saturday for the AMC cinema suite show. I think the lady is more excited than I am to see it and I am really excited about seeing it finally!
Boogie138 - 12/27/2012, 6:50 PM
dwarves are sweet
KeefNCookies - 12/27/2012, 7:05 PM
It was seen, and it was satisfying. Can't wait to see what comes next in the sequel, and the finale! Middle-Earth FTW! If only they'd make The Silmarillion...
eleven59 - 12/27/2012, 7:30 PM
Speaking of being burned out by sci-fi, that would be next year. there must've been at least 3 sci-fi, near future, apotlyptic, fantasy, cgi heavy trailers before the hobbit today: featuring will smith, Tom snooze ( again as a "Jack" character) and then transformers... I mean pacific rim. All three felt the same: generic sci-fi and reminded me of a live action halo or transformers,

Not to mention star trek thrown in the mix too...
Jolt17 - 12/27/2012, 8:35 PM
I sure hope it will earn a LOT more, because it definitely deserves it. The movie's one of the best of this year, second only to Looper for me. And for those who haven't seen it, get it in HFR 3D. It's seriously stunning.
AUSSYACE - 12/27/2012, 8:53 PM
I heard that this movie was slower than a snail and dragged out beyond belief...

KeefNCookies - 12/27/2012, 9:20 PM
It was somewhat slow and did kinda drag at times, but honestly, it was more satisfying than almost every other movie of this year and many others. Also, its kind of pathetic for you people to constantly post non-related chick-pix. Pathetic virgins much?
balrogking10 - 12/27/2012, 9:35 PM
As a huge fan of the LOTR trilogy I have to admit "the Hobbit" (which I read as a kid) exceeded my expectations; however, there is a major problem for the other 2 "sequels": the most interesting scenes from the movie are those that directly reference the future epic events that will take place 60 years from the time frame of "T.H."- obviously, Bilbo's encounter with Gollum (the sequence that saves the film from being considered mediocre) & the meeting of the pro-forma White Council (Gandalf, Saruman, Elrond and Galadriel) where the "evil unknown presence" in the forest of Greenwood (aka Mirkwood) is first described. There will be other references to this early incarnation of Sauron in the other movies but, hopefully, they will not overshadow the somewhat less portentious plot of the original story (the quest to take back Erebor from Smaug the Dragon). We'll have to wait and see.
legolad - 12/27/2012, 9:38 PM
I'm not worried, unlike most Americans who don't read books for pleasure, at least not as much as the rest of the world, almost everyone else has read more than just the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings. I have in fact read all of the Middle-earth legendarium, including the Silmarillion, and some more than once. If you read the Hobbit, it is slow paced. Lord of the Rings, that is even more slow paced than the Hobbit. The reason people feel it has a slow start or it is too long is because they do not understand that Peter Jackson decided to make a much more faithful adaptation than he did with the Lord of the Rings.

Here's what happened,

PJ made LotR Trilogy, but he left a bunch of stuff out, including the all time favorite Tom Bombadil. He had 3 books full of detail and there were 2 big reasons he couldn't make a truly faithful adaptation.

1. The studio backing the project wouldn't let him. Anybody who's in the movie making business knows you take a risk make an adaptation, especially a fantasy genre. Given the fact all 3 films would be shot and financed before any movie was released was a big risk. Remember, other studios wanted to make only two, or maybe just ONE LotR movie. It was a risk so PJ had to cater to movie audiences first and Tolkien fans second.

2. It's 3 books, in reality 6 because each had 2 books with in it. Might as well make a tv series that would last a few seasons. It was just not possible to fit it all in.

So PJ made the LotR Trilogy that appeals to pretty much everyone and had the least risk.

Now for the Hobbit.

1. PJ proved that Tolkien fantasy genre is a big money maker so there was no longer a risk. PJ made a trilogy for fans first and audiences second. I mean I never thought I would ever see the White Council or Dol Guldor on the silver screen, but he gave us, the fans, just what we wanted. Granted, he took liberties with Azog and such, but that was for the audiences. A movie like has to have a bad guy that is present, not one that is hidden under a pile of gold in the Lonely Mountain.

2. He had a small children's book, and a bunch of unused material from the LotR Appendices. So PJ decided to include that in the background story. In fact, I was more giddy watching the Necromancer subplot rather than the adventure with Bilbo. PJ gave us a movie for the fans. He was given all the money he needed, and all the freedom he wanted. And in my opinion, he succeed in making a grand and as epic a trilogy as the LotR.

So in the words of Gandalf, if you want to be a fool, "throw yourself in next time and rid us of your stupidity!"
balrogking10 - 12/27/2012, 10:48 PM
Quick question for you as a Tolkien scholar: why would the "undead spirit" which Radagast was attacked by(apparently the Lord of the Nazgul himself or at least a lesser Ringwraith, maybe Khamul or Gothmog)appear in his true form from the world of the Unseen (or "gul"); it should have been, without raiment, invisible to mortal eyes. It could be argued that Radagast, as a member of the Maiar, has the ability to perceive such entities, but that's a stretch. Also, why did the Morgul blade remain intact; only the hilt should have survived contact with the real world. 2 blatant violations of the Tolkien's rules by Jackson.
legolad - 12/27/2012, 11:02 PM

Bro, I know, like I said, he took some liberties with the source material, like the fact that Azog the Defiler, the white orc, is alive in the movie. Azog was killed by Dain during the battle at the gates of Moria.

What you mention is what I really didn't like. The Witch-King of Angmar did not die. He never died, because remember the prophecy Glorfindel spoke,

"Do not pursue him! He will not return to these lands. Far off yet is his doom, and not by the hand of man shall he fall." - Glorfindel

So the Witch-King, the Lord of the Nazgul, never died and was never buried like Elrond and Galadriel claimed during the White Council meeting in the movie.

Then again, Radagast was never in the book, so that was also just another plot device PJ threw into the movie.

legolad - 12/27/2012, 11:06 PM

also, the blade of the Morgul Blade did not disappear like in Lord of the Rings because it was not used yet. In order for only the hilt to remain, the blade has to be used, as in the point has to break in the opponent's flesh, just like what happened to Frodo.
AlexDeLarge87 - 12/28/2012, 2:40 AM
Movie was awesome. The beginning was little bit too long thou. Frodo scenes felt unnecessary.

There was few things they changed but film adaptations are always different.

I bet Azog dies in the second one and Bolg comes to revenge when the battle of five armies start.

Smaug scenes were chilling. I hope he is big as hell and red.
1 2

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.