Peter Jackson's first Hobbit movie may have split critics, but there was no such division in the CBM ranks, as almost 50% of you chose one of the most extreme options. Click to find out which one and to see the results in full..

Well bless my beard! With 1,340 Votes, 49.91% of you chose the most positive option in our poll - "Excellent. Loved every minute, a glorious return to Middle Earth". And it continued on that way until the very end, as apparently slightly more of you seemed to hate the Hell out of the movie (Phantom menace comparisons - ugh) than simply think it was disappointing. Anyway, definitely a win for the first part of Jackson's new Middle Earth trilogy, lets hope the quality continues with the other installments. Oh and Thorin ran away with the favorite Dwarf poll, obviously!

Posted By:
Mark Cassidy
Member Since 11/9/2008
Filed Under "Fantasy" 12/18/2012
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
BlueHawaiiSurfer - 12/18/2012, 12:07 PM
I loved the tone of the movie. I loved that it wasn't LOTR all over again. I loved that we got a well put together good old fashioned "go on a quest and get the dragon" type of movie. *****-It was better than Cats...I want to see it again and again!!! Naaaw but it was a good movie.
Ashes2Phoenix - 12/18/2012, 12:09 PM
I thought this film was excellent. I honestly don't get the bad press for this film.The acting, cinematography, CGI and script were all spot on. It wasn't LOTR but to be fair nor is it mean't to be. My favourite film this year hands down ! Well done Mr Jackson ! I think the critics were at the Old Toby !
jimpinto24 - 12/18/2012, 12:13 PM
I enjoyed every minute of The Hobbit! One of the best films of 2012.
LucasMend - 12/18/2012, 12:15 PM
It was alright, soundtrack too repetitive, really not necessary being almost 3 hours, some scenes were too long and radagast was such an awful character. Also, I can see the whole Necromancer/Sauron subplot going to nowhere, as it was forgotten and you can't develop that much further.
And I read the novel and was [frick]ing excited for that.
LucasMend - 12/18/2012, 12:24 PM
Not to forget most of the dwarves didn't get a line or development, really makes us not to care for them if they get on danger.
buckjoe - 12/18/2012, 12:33 PM
Awesome film!
CrowPirate1 - 12/18/2012, 12:41 PM
I have to see it again. I fell asleep 45 minutes in and NOBODY I went with woke me up!!!!! DAMMIT!!!!
SaxoWolf - 12/18/2012, 12:53 PM
Loved every minute of it!
MutantEquality - 12/18/2012, 12:54 PM
@CrowPirate1 lmao
Gigacrusher45 - 12/18/2012, 12:59 PM
Anyone complaining about the dwarves not getting any development besides Thorin needs to remember they literally got zero development in the book. All the dwarves were basically the same with a mention of a few unique characteristics once in a while.

Peter Jackson gave them all a unique style and you could get a sense of their personalities from the moments they did have. Hard to split it even between 13 dwarves.

Great film. Kept a great pace with great action. Loved the added material from outside the Hobbit book and expanding on stories already in it. Can't see why someone wouldn't like it.

Too long? Every scene played its part. Here's a better question. How do you not know how long the movie is before seeing it? When you look up what time your going to see the movie it says it RIGHT THERE.
M3T4LL0 - 12/18/2012, 1:09 PM
Intruder!!! Long time no see glad to see you're back!!
Facade - 12/18/2012, 1:11 PM
Just got back from seeing it for the 1st time. I thought it was great. 48fps is not an issue some have made it out to be. I can see how the 25min of additional footage on DVD will benefit the story (fill in some holes). All in all, I say it's a must see!
RyGoR - 12/18/2012, 1:14 PM
@gigacrusher45 amen brotha! Couldn't have said it any better! I thought the movie couldn't have been any better


Maybe make the goblin king's chin not look like balls they should've called him the gonads king lol jk

Jokes aside though this movie was AMAZING I recommend everyone to go see it!!!
MisterNiceGuy - 12/18/2012, 1:16 PM
Better than TT and ROTK for sure
darkbeefstakes - 12/18/2012, 1:17 PM
I could never sit through this twice. I'll rent it and then just use the fast forward button to watch the movie the way it should of been edited. Plus, the whole 48 fps makes the film look like a movie that would go straight to DVD anyway
darkbeefstakes - 12/18/2012, 1:20 PM
People need to stop defending Jackson's choice to shoot at 48 fps. It's not a revolution to filmmaking, it's a huge step back and just another ploy for studios to charge more money and convince people to see the movie in theatres, Jackson said this himself in an interview when asked about his shoot 48fps. "I don't want people to watch the hobbit on the Internet, so as filmmakers we have to look for new ways to convince people to go to the theatre" something along those lines.
darkbeefstakes - 12/18/2012, 1:21 PM
Video games have been trying harder and harder to look like films, and now films are trying harder and harder to look like video games.
Kyos - 12/18/2012, 1:28 PM
'twas alright. Still very unconvinced that splitting it up into three movies was wise.
LucasMend - 12/18/2012, 1:33 PM
When I say almost 3 hours (which I already knew duh) I mean PJ extended some scenes with no need. almost 30 minutes on bilbo's house, radagast scenes with the orcs running after him. Jesus, there's still gonna be an extended version on dvd later! God help us. The movie felt too long in an unnecessary way, different of LOTR, which developed good stuff in it's time.

And the dwarves, of course they were not developed in the book as well, but this is a movie, that amount of characters should have some kind of development, and I'm sorry, but the only ones with some kind of personality there were Thorin (which I loved), Balin, Dwalin (very few), Kili, Fili. Some others had like one line. Gloin? how can I get a sense of his personality? Of course is hard to develop each of them, but if Jackson focused less on Radagast and other unnecessary stuff, maybe they could have been more well developed.

Oh and not that I didn't know about how long the movie was, but I don't normally go after knowing how long it is, the surprise is always better, in this case, was weird. I love LOTR. I like this hobbit movie too, but I admit it was not FANTASTIC or the best thing ever. The 48 fps was also badly done by him. You guys have to open your eyes, alright is middle-earth, but know that it was very poor.
Facade - 12/18/2012, 2:00 PM
@darkbeefstakes...1st off, who's defending Jackson for using 48fps?! I didn't mind it at all. Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean it needs defending. Most of the 3D movies I've seen gave me a head ache, whereas 48fps did not. I'm thankful for the choices available, because it's easier on the eyes.

2nd, there isn't an additional cost to seeing it in HFR 3D or 24fps 3D, so what the hell are you talking about?! Seems a little trollish.
REDSTORM - 12/18/2012, 2:03 PM
I enjoyed the movie. I also enjoyed the Hobbit menu at Dennys, so 5*
TheGambitFreak - 12/18/2012, 2:25 PM
Kili was by far my favorite!
TheGambitFreak - 12/18/2012, 2:25 PM
@darkbeefstakes, You know, I've seen you around, and I've tried doing the polite thing and not replying, but now this is getting ridiculous.

Did you watch the same film? First off, the 48 frames per second did not cost anymore than a regular ticket.
Secondly, seriously? I mean really? Did you watch the 48 frames per second?

I don't think you did, that, or you've never seen another movie in your life. Go watch The Avengers, or The Bourne Legacy, or Skyfall, or any action film ever created. During fight scenes, it is blurry because the director is trying to show the audience how fast and intense the fight is (They also do this to avoid showing the actors not actually punching each other but that is besides the point). In the Hobbit, the 48 frames per second eliminates that. For example, [SPOILERS], the ending fight scene in the woods atop the mountains, notice how the wargs, when they move by the camera extremely fast, how instead of a blurry commotion, you can see every freaking detail and strand of hair of their fur...[END OF SPOILERS]

You do not get that with every type of film.
Honestly, I don't believe 48 frames per second is the future of cinema, but it is the future of movies that are aiming for fight sequences and movies with breathtaking landscapes, such as LOTR and Star Wars.

Now I'll agree with you on the Video Games to Movies and vice versa comment, that seems to be the trend and I do not know why.
I'm pondering what exactly you meant by your statement of how you can't sit throught this film twice. Never once did it get boring, and if it did to you, you need to go watch TDKR and come back and see if you feel the same way. But I shouldn't have to tell you that considering your stereotypical and ironic avatar.

@LucasMend, I think this is why Jackson has decided to span the book over 3 films. As @Ror mentioned in a previous article, I too, believe that Jackson is somewhat hindered by the book. So with the forthcoming sequels to the The Hobbit, The Desolation of Smaug and There and Back Again, I feel as if the Dwarves will get fleshed out quite a bit.
GrayMatter - 12/18/2012, 2:27 PM
The Hobbit was great. I've already seen it twice now. Once in 48fps, once in 24fps. And I can say that the 24fps version was unequivocally better. The HFR looked okay in some of the slow scenes, but anytime it was a fast-paced action scene, it was awful. It looked like the movie was on fast-forward.

And are we actually going to be getting extended versions on DVD/BR? I thought the whole point of turning it into 3 movies was so that they wouldn't have to cut hardly anything. I thought these already were the "extended editions"
LucasMend - 12/18/2012, 2:53 PM
Sure, they might get better development in the future, but in this movie they didn't, you give your opinion in each movie by it's own. So in this movie: no development for them.
Niem8211 - 12/18/2012, 3:00 PM
I liked it, my wife even liked it and she usually can’t stand geeky sh*t like this. She did fall asleep in the beginning, but that is to be expected because any Hobbit or LOTR movies always have to explain everything before they start to get good. Over all if it impresses the wife it has to be at least a 8 out of 10.

KeithM - 12/18/2012, 3:19 PM
@darkbeefsticks: I loved the 48 fps. I thought it looked stunning. So I'll 'defend' Jackson all I want thanks. Have your own opinion all you want, but don't presume to tell anyone else what they should think.
Darth258 - 12/18/2012, 3:31 PM
Hell Yeah
Ramiel - 12/18/2012, 3:40 PM
It's really good that of the 2225 votes out of 2685 thought that the movie was really good to excellent. That's about 83% of the poll.
Darth258 - 12/18/2012, 3:41 PM
croniccris - 12/18/2012, 5:49 PM
@thegambitfreak word!
Scorpioxfactor - 12/18/2012, 6:11 PM
I liked it, but fell alseep during the scene with Bilbo and Gollum. I think it was well made and better than the other films in some ways. IE too boring. I think PJ(Peter Jackson) learned his lesson about not making it too mushy and wimpy. But he did still fit the beauty and majesty of middle earth which satisified me in that aspect. I especially enjoyed the part when the close to the end.
>>>>>>>SPOILER ALERT<<<<<

Waiting for The eagles to show up. I love The Silmarillion personally more than any of the other books. I am all about it. So, the eagles were a throwback bonus for me especially.

>>>>>SPOILER END<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Well, that's it. Good to be back. Hope all is well God Bless to all of the old crew and the New crew who I haven't met yet. :)
Darkie - 12/18/2012, 6:44 PM
The worst thing for me was the cinematics. it looked like a BBC show with some scenes, then it looked like an American made for other scenes. If they would have stuck with the standard filming then I think it would have been alot better...
darkbeefstakes - 12/18/2012, 9:20 PM
Darkie agrees with me. I didn;t even see th emovie so, yeah I was trolling Tralalalalaal. But i dont like Tlotr. And have not liked a peter jackson film since dead alive. He needs to learn how to not draw out his movies.
darkbeefstakes - 12/18/2012, 9:28 PM
But your guys arguments as to why I was wring with my statement were kind of besides the point. WHich was there is no real reason to see movies in 3d or 48 fps, as both mediums make the film either hurt your head or look "fake". As one of you argued it made the punches have less motion blur... Isn't that bad? We know people aren't actually punching each other in movies, why would we want to film these scenes in a way that draws attention to how fake it really is?
darkbeefstakes - 12/18/2012, 9:30 PM
And my avater is more or less because i was too lazy to find a picture. I just had this photo on my computer because i was comparing his face to my cousins (who I think looks simliar). And it was the only slighlty comic book movie related thing i had.
darkbeefstakes - 12/18/2012, 9:31 PM
But, i am speaking out of my ass. Im actually looking foward to seeing this movie in 48 fps just to see how it looks.
Equivocal - 12/18/2012, 10:05 PM
I just came back from the theater and honestly, The Hobbit is one of the best movies of 2012 !!!

The Avengers
The Hobbit
Life of Pi
The Secret world of Arriety

in that order !!!
darkbeefstakes - 12/18/2012, 11:21 PM
Plus I have seen tdkr twice, to the guy who told me to go watch it and come back . Not sure why you wanted me too? As watching it twice would not make my experience with the hobbit change. I thoight tdkr was well paced, the second act slowed during banes silly speach ontop a tumbler, but it did not last for more than five minutes. Bruce in the prison (even though i thought those scenes were eiverse enough to not get boring, however if one did find those scenes boring they were no more than maybe fifteen minutes of the whole movie). What I am trying to say is I'm pretty sure tdkr did not try to stretch one moderately sized book into 9 hours of movies. For no other reason thn to grab more cash, and Jackson's fetich for middle earth and drawn out stories (ie. king kong, loveley bones, lotr, that movie with Kate Winslow as a lesbian). And I am sure tdkr did not film itself in some silly medium just to convince people not to watch it online. Nvm, it did. IMAX. As much as IMAX enhances the clarity I still think it is a gimmick, but at least it makes the film look better. As opposed to say 48fps or 3d.
darkbeefstakes - 12/18/2012, 11:32 PM
And the films to video games and vice Vera's was partially in regard to the 48fps comments. Since 48fps is closer to how video games play. But it was also in reference to big action movies storylines in general. (not the hobbit in particular) actually more along the lines of movies like avengers and transformers. Plot = eliminate all bad guys because they are bad and want to destroy something like the world or whatever.
1 2

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.