[CJWALKER]

Anyone else immensley excited about the new Hobbit films!

When i heard that they were doing it but Del Torro was directing i wasnt as excited as i would have been!

But now virtually the entire crew from the original trilogy is back

Peter jackson
Phillipa Boyens
Fran walsh
Ian Mckellen
Andy serkis
Cate Blanchett
Elijah wood

I am beyond excited that Jackson is directing, its going to feel like a proper sequel!

[Gill P]

And Richard Armitage is in it too - yum yum!

[TheSlayer10]

Im excited but I know in my heart they wont be as good as the LOTR trilogy

[RussellIan]

So long as they leave those bloody interminable songs and poems out I don't mind.

[Vol]

I'm a massive fan of the Lotr movies (as in they are literally my favourite films) but I actually wish they weren't doing the hobbit movie. I can't help feeling that it's not going to be of the same quality as lotr and might taint the original trilogy . Although if it is good I'll be happy to eat my words .

[Havelock Vetinari]

I am so excited as well. The fact they have the crew back and no changing of major characters, except Bilbo. I just hope that is comes out as good as the trilogy.
Also glad that the extended LOTR are out this year on Blu-Ray.

[Vol]

Originally Posted by Havelock Vetinari

I am so excited as well. The fact they have the crew back and no changing of major characters, except Bilbo. I just hope that is comes out as good as the trilogy.
Also glad that the extended LOTR are out this year on Blu-Ray.

Oooo that's something that'll tempt me to get a Blu-Ray player .

[Iggyman]

Can't think what there is to be excited about - Jackson will make a complete hash of The Hobbit, just like he did with the LotR trilogy.

[You_mo]

I hope Martin Freeman pulls it off. There's something hobbity about him, so I think he'll do well.

[RussellIan]

Originally Posted by You_mo

I hope Martin Freeman pulls it off. There's something hobbity about him, so I think he'll do well.

Are they going for an X certificate then?

[You_mo]

Originally Posted by RussellIan

Are they going for an X certificate then?

No isn't THAT kind of dwarf movie!

[NorfolkBoy1]

Originally Posted by Iggyman

Can't think what there is to be excited about - Jackson will make a complete hash of The Hobbit, just like he did with the LotR trilogy.

Yeah, they were such a dismal failiure creatively and financially weren't they?

Let me guess, you were livid at the exclusion of Tom Bombadill.

I was actually REALLY looking forward to Del Torro doing this film, he's perfectly suited to such a project, so it's a shame he's not doing it, he's the only director other than Jackson that I feel could be trusted with the franchise.

Still, it's in good hands nontheless.

[You_mo]

Originally Posted by Iggyman

Can't think what there is to be excited about - Jackson will make a complete hash of The Hobbit, just like he did with the LotR trilogy.

I think Jackson did a fantastic job. He even bullied the studios into doing it as a trilogy when they wanted two movies. Plus the extended versions are great for the fans.

[Iggyman]

Originally Posted by NorfolkBoy1

Yeah, they were such a dismal failiure creatively and financially weren't they?

Let me guess, you were livid at the exclusion of Tom Bombadill.

I was actually REALLY looking forward to Del Torro doing this film, he's perfectly suited to such a project, so it's a shame he's not doing it, he's the only director other than Jackson that I feel could be trusted with the franchise.

Still, it's in good hands nontheless.

Okay, let's take those points one at a time:

a) Creativity - nope, not seeing it. Compared to the books the creativity seemed to have gone out of the window.

b) Financially - yup, they made oodles of money, but that doesn't mean that they were any good (look no further than the dreadful Avatar to prove that point).

c) Tom Bombadil? His absence didn't worry me, but omitting The Scouring of the Shire was a huge mistake.

Genrally speaking, Jackson chopped out far too much, added a lot of utter nonsense and, in doing so, completely changed many characters and their actions (Faramir, Eowyn and Denethor to name but three).

I'm pleased that Del Torro isn't directing The Hobbit - the guy fixates far too much on creature designs, putting them before the story. Then again, I'm also unhappy that Jackson is directing and co-writing The Hobbit. I certainly won't waste my money by watching it.

[Party Animal]

Originally Posted by Iggyman

Can't think what there is to be excited about - Jackson will make a complete hash of The Hobbit, just like he did with the LotR trilogy.

You sound a barrel of Laughs... I was looking for the smileys when you said that Jackson made a Hash of the Trilogy movies
but no smileys to be seen
How can you sit their and say they were not creative with some really unbelieavable characters and sets

I think that they are best fantasy movies ever made
gripping cinema for the whole family to enjoy

Roll on the Hobbit

[grimtales1]

I remember having the Hobbit read to me as a kid and though I hadnt read LOTR I knew the story and some characters, they were brilliant movies and a great trilogy.

[Iggyman]

Originally Posted by Party Animal

You sound a barrel of Laughs... I was looking for the smileys when you said that Jackson made a Hash of the Trilogy movies
but no smileys to be seen
How can you sit their and say they were not creative with some really unbelieavable characters and sets

I think that they are best fantasy movies ever made
gripping cinema for the whole family to enjoy

Roll on the Hobbit

Good, glad that you enjoyed them, but for me, when compared to the books that they were based on, Jackson made a right pig's ear of the films.

Unbelievable characters and sets? Big deal, first and foremost I go for story and characterisation, and Jackson made a mess of both.

Still, it's just MY opinion that they're bad, as it's YOUR opinion that they are 'the best', but we can only air our own opinions which will often differ.

[NorfolkBoy1]

Originally Posted by Iggyman

Okay, let's take those points one at a time:

a) Creativity - nope, not seeing it. Compared to the books the creativity seemed to have gone out of the window.

b) Financially - yup, they made oodles of money, but that doesn't mean that they were any good (look no further than the dreadful Avatar to prove that point).

c) Tom Bombadil? His absence didn't worry me, but omitting The Scouring of the Shire was a huge mistake.

Genrally speaking, Jackson chopped out far too much, added a lot of utter nonsense and, in doing so, completely changed many characters and their actions (Faramir, Eowyn and Denethor to name but three).

I'm pleased that Del Torro isn't directing The Hobbit - the guy fixates far too much on creature designs, putting them before the story. Then again, I'm also unhappy that Jackson is directing and co-writing The Hobbit. I certainly won't waste my money by watching it.

I$m totally with you on Avatar Theory, or as I like to call it, The Brian Adams Problem.

The films are a version of the story, and to be honest, as great a story as lotr (the book) is, as a piece of writing it's ever such hard work, to make it work on screen it had to be changed radically imho.

The films represent the Tolkien universe brilliantly in incredible detail, even if you don't like the dramatic treatment that can't be denied surely?

Plus their massive success introduced a whole new generation of fans to the books. That's a great thing.

The best thing about the hobbit is it's a much more concise story, but there that doesn't mean you're going to get a verbatim copy of the book, it sounds like a big chunk is going to be completely new prequel to lotr! *crosses fingers and hopes Jackson doesn't go all George Lucas*

[Vol]

Originally Posted by Iggyman

Good, glad that you enjoyed them, but for me, when compared to the books that they were based on, Jackson made a right pig's ear of the films.

Unbelievable characters and sets? Big deal, first and foremost I go for story and characterisation, and Jackson made a mess of both.

Still, it's just MY opinion that they're bad, as it's YOUR opinion that they are 'the best', but we can only air our own opinions which will often differ.

The only issue I usually agree about fans of the books with is that a few characters were turned into comic relief in the movies (Pippin, Gimli etc). As far as characterisation goes when I read the books (which was admittedly after I first saw TFotR) I actually found the majority of the characters to be quite samey and one dimensional. Lotr is a great story at its core, but even an uber fan of the book would find it difficult to deny that it is bogged down with unnecessary descriptions, backstory and poetry. Unless you love these particular aspects I can't see why you would dislike the movies so much.

[Anika Hanson]

I am really excited but it is too long away.

[Party Animal]

Originally Posted by Iggyman

Good, glad that you enjoyed them, but for me, when compared to the books that they were based on, Jackson made a right pig's ear of the films.

Unbelievable characters and sets? Big deal, first and foremost I go for story and characterisation, and Jackson made a mess of both.

Still, it's just MY opinion that they're bad, as it's YOUR opinion that they are 'the best', but we can only air our own opinions which will often differ.

I have not read the books so it does not matter wether its true to the book or not - its a work of fantasy story telling
and it works brilliantly, with characters the audience cares for obviously not in your case
I beg to differ

[vicky2424]

We read the Hobbit at school, a lovely picture book, took us the whole year to get thru but I've recently re-read it especially after hearing Richard Armitage was cast as the head dwarf.

I think, as said above, the Hobbit is a more concise story and putting it across the two films they will flesh it out a lot. I mean Legolas isn't mentioned at all, however that doesn't mean he wasn't there with his father the Elvenking (David Tenant *squee*) during that part of the story and during the battle which obviously we didn't see any of but will definitely be shown in great detail in the film.

I can't imagine all the dwarf songs will be put in, maybe just one and some kind of dwarf theme like that love to have in movie soundtracks

[CJWALKER]

Originally Posted by Iggyman

c) Tom Bombadil? His absence didn't worry me, but omitting The Scouring of the Shire was a huge mistake.

.

You obviously dont understand the process of film making!

You CANNOT end a 12 hour trilogy, something which spanned 3 years by having the main characters coming home to even more heartache!

Weve HAD the war, weve HAD the death and despair, a Movie like this needs a happy ending!

How would I as a movie goer have felt if when Frodo returned to the shire it had been destroyed!

The very thing he'd been fighting to protect! It would have been an utterly depressing end and made the entire journey feel pointless!

[Vol]

Originally Posted by CJWALKER

You obviously dont understand the process of film making!

You CANNOT end a 12 hour trilogy, something which spanned 3 years by having the main characters coming home to even more heartache!

Weve HAD the war, weve HAD the death and despair, a Movie like this needs a happy ending!

How would I as a movie goer have felt if when Frodo returned to the shire it had been destroyed!

The very thing he'd been fighting to protect! It would have been an utterly depressing end and made the entire journey feel pointless!

Yeah well said. Also in the extended RotK they dealt with the end of Saruman in a similar way to the book so I don't see why the book fans moan about that so much.

[pocatello]

With time and perspective the more like avatar those lotr films feel.
Hobbit is a childrens book.
Peter jackson was behind the lovely bones and king kong, he can do wrong.
Lotr was hours of empty spectacle, I know it was hyped, and i know we were "supposed" to like it, but it made me feel nothing, it was just going through the motions. I just cant see how the hobbit is anything more than another bite at the apple.