ilovefuzz.com

devideva wrote: I still want to live in Rivendell or Lothlorien.

Fixed. It doesn't need 3 3 hour long movies to tell the tale, hell you can read the whole book in about the same amount of time that it takes you to watch one of the movies.

Aren't the first two going to be The Hobbit and the third is going to be stuff from the appendices from the hobbit and LOTR? I

Not sure, I haven't even watched the movie yet but this thread is making me second guess if I actually want to.

Somewhat enjoyed the books
Do not like/enjoy LotR trilogy
Loved the hobbit.

Golem portion was my favorite, really like how that panned out. Also I loved the goblins/goblin king. Bilbo was perfectly cast. Have liked that guy since I use to watch the uk office. Thought he did a great job with a modern mentality that balanced the seriousness of the dwarves really well. Would definitely recommend. Any of you who are complaining about 3 installments haven better NEVER have complained about a movie adaptation leaving parts of the story out, js.

Gunner Recall wrote:I enjoyed it, the hobbit came before LOTR and was intentionally cheesy/lighter than the later novels. It's a kids story.

They certainly could have done it in 2 movies...1 would have been a stretch but 3 feels a
I do agree the CGI is very distracting...especially the trolls and the orc/goblin leaders who looked fresh out of a video game from about 5 or 6 years ago.

agreed.

i thought it was good and solid
what i didn't like was the 48fps. made the CGI look like it was a real set filmed with a shitty camera.
I can't handle HDtv either for the same reasons
but from clips I've seen on my tube box it would look much better to me at a regular frame rate. I guess it's a sign of the changing times.
but nothing about the CGI looked cheap, it was hardly noticeable.
i'll go see the next two.
but I do wonder if a 2nd trilogy was necessary for such a small book. takes away from the epicness of the LOTR trilogy.