ONTD

6:55 pm - 01/01/2013

CNN Is Like ONTD: They Hate Things Without Valid Reasons

'The Hobbit' One of the Top 10 Worst Movies in 2012 According to CNN



CNN.com writer Tom Charity has posted his 'The 10 worst movies of 2012' and decided to controversially include 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey' on the list. It should be noted, he specifically calls out the 48fps experience as being the 'worst' - not the actual film itself. Though he does take a dig at the length of the latest Middle-earth tome. The facts about 'The Hobbit' seem to paint a different picture: RottenTomatoes Critic index of 65%; RottenTomatoes audience rating of 81%; CinemaScore rating of 'A;' Ringer Review average of 4.5/5; Three week lead at the international box office; and breaking multiple December box office records. Looking at Mr. Charity's other films on the list, most have a RottenTomatoes.com rating of < 30% and only one breaks the 50% mark.

What Tom Charity Wrote:

Whatever you think of the film itself (and with at least one-third of the running time given over to padding, it's pretty indefensible), hands-down the worst experience at the movies this year was suffering the plastic high-definition 48 frames-per-second 3-D version of Peter Jackson's box-office smash. The technology made one of the most expensive movies ever made look like a PS3 game.

So what made Mr. Charity put 'The Hobbit' on his list? The easiest explanation is he really didn't like the 48fps experience as he states in the article.

His true intention is even more transparent. He simply wants more eyeballs and a bit of controversy. After all, he only continues to get paid if he remains interesting. (The quote from Zoolander comes to mind...'Dance Monkey, Dance!') So including a popular film on his 'worst of' list on a major outlet like CNN.com is sure to do just that. It will definitely cause some discussion.

Would you put 'The Hobbit' on your own worst list of 2012? Is Mr. Charity totally off base? Tell us what you think!

Source
I cannot deal with the stupidity of this writer. He basically hated The Hobbit because of the 48fps 3D version. What a FUCKING idiot. He just pulled the hate out of his ass cuz there was nothing else he could hate on. And there are 3 movies cuz PJ included EVERYTHING from the book and whatever else was mentioned of the Hobbit in the LOTR books.
adigallia 2nd-Jan-2013 03:33 am (UTC)
Truth. I think maybe a lot of people haven't read the Hobbit recently. I reread it this summer and had forgotten how quickly it wraps everything up. They can easily expand on all that stuff (and they should, since it really was too quick in the book). Plus all the extra stuff with the Necromancer, etc... I can easily see it being three movies.

And, frankly, after Peter Jackson took LotR, which was supposed to be unfilmable, and made it into an Oscar-winning trilogy, he's earned the benefit of the doubt. If he says he needs three movies, why the fuck shouldn't we trust him? Why are people bitching about more time in Middle Earth? It's not like they're inventing stuff - it's all Tolkien's material they are including.

Blergh. I'm tired of all the bitching. At least wait and see all three films before denouncing it.
anolinde 2nd-Jan-2013 03:34 am (UTC)
Agreed with all this. Your second paragraph in particular is spot-on.
__nocturna 2nd-Jan-2013 03:39 am (UTC)
seriously, I don't understand how someone could be a Tolkien fan and NOT want 3 movies
modernelegance 2nd-Jan-2013 04:09 am (UTC)
MTE, if 3 movies means we get more middle earth, fine by me! I get to see and be with all of my old friends again. I love that we are getting the history and more details because some people (like me) find it hard sifting through all of Tolkien's material and seeing how the big picture fits together.
This page was loaded May 26th 2013, 2:42 am GMT.