To wonder how The Hobbit is going to be stretched over three films?

[SpanielFace]

Lord of the Rings, yes. But I can't see how The Hobbit warrants 9 hours of film time. I'm still looking forward to seeing it though!

youbloodywolf I agree, there was a lot in the film that simply didn't happen in the book. They've taken a very simple and fast paced children's book and turned it into a very detailed epic trilogy.
POSSIBLE SPOILERS
I don't think this is a bad thing however. It was thrilling to watch, well, the second half certainly was and anything that lets us see more of this world is fine by me.
I liked the nods to the chapter names and jokes. The Gollum part was particularly good and actually enhanced the book experience for me.
The IMAX 3D still gave me a slight headache but it was definitely more exciting to watch. (Btw, I've never seen a more exciting trailer than the one for Star Trek 2. That will be a must see in IMAX 3D.)
You could see the parts that they weren't allowed to touch. I don't believe they had the rights to all parts of the world so Gandalf had to "forget" the names of two wizards.
It was definitely too long though. A good half an hour could have been edited out and we wouldn't have missed anything.
POSSIBLE SPOILERS

I really enjoyed it, and went in expecting it to be much too long. Turns out it was just a bit lengthy. Annoyingly though, the I-max didn't have the Star Trek trailer because we went on the first night (and saw some people dressed up as Hobbits!)

I felt strangely drawn to Thorin Oakenshield!

Back of the queue, Binky back of the queue... :o

I've got nothing against creating detailed worlds with epic characters, Thing and it was an exciting, immersive film (once it'd had time for a shower, shave and coffee). I'd still like to see a film made of the book though

And another thing: half of the dwarves weren't, y'know, dwarves. And would it have killed them to have found a role for Scarlet Johanson in a catsuit? Thorin bloody Oakenpants bedamned!

YBW - you've ruined for me now, and I haven't even seen it. I'll be sat there thinking " they could have found a role for.....". Damn.

Sorry, Pan. I've revised it up to Christina Hendricks, anyway. Johansen's lips would be irritating over a 3 hour film. Maybe she could've played Gandalf? It's moral cowardice from Jackson to not cast her in that role, now I come to think of it!

And now I'm thinking about who I'd cast in an all-female Hobbit.

Her off Ally McBeal as Gollum.
Jo Brand as voice of the Goblin King.
Kirstie Alsop as Bilbo?

OK - saw it (in 2D) loved it - but since when were the elves vegetarian

Forgot there was already a thread. Just seen it. Loved it. Want to see it again.

I'm a huge fan of LOTR and I've been lucky enough to visit 'Hobbiton' twice - once just before they started filming this time around. The skill that went into making that place was astonishing.

I was really disappointed by 'The Hobbit' though. I thought it was excellent in places but was also self indulgent and just plain boring. I can only think it's stretched over 3 films as a money spinner. Or maybe as a wank fest for Peter Jackson .

Finally got to see it this afternoon, after Thursday's debacle.

I haven't read the book so have no comparison on that level, but on the whole I enjoyed it. I didn't think it had the same 'epic' feel as LOTR, but I suspect that may be more apparent in the second film. There were a few scenes that struck me as overly long - I had a very late night last night and struggled to stay awake when the elves were on screen tbh.

Loved the opening scenes showing how the dwarves lost Erebor, and Balin's description of Thorin's first confrontation with Azog actually brought a tear to my eye.

Thought Richard Armitage was fab, especially in the battle scenes, but as I'm one of the nutters from the RA fangirl 'quiche' that was a bit of a given !

Did anybody notice how the elven queen really needed a manicure - I mean attention to detail make-up people - her nails were nearly as bad as Gandalf's.

I liked it, but I agree it was looooong. It was like watching the extended version of LotR - while I liked seeing the deleted scenes, I could see why they were deleted, as they threw the pacing off.

Not sure the songs were a good idea, or the sleigh pulled by rabbits. It made it all a bit silly.

I missed having handsome male flesh to feast my eyes on, with the honourable exception of Aiden Turner. Oh, he was lovely.

Ooooo, I hadn't noticed before, but the is up on YouTube

Laqueen - you may be right in this - have been off investigating - in fact the majority of middle earth elves are dark but the sindar are silver haired and one special bunch are blond - related to the high elves in Valinor. Thrandruil is blond so Legolas could have gone either way. Much internet debate on this one! I was convinced there was a sentence describing him but of course cannot find it. I still prefer him dark (can't change after 20 years) .

Agree entirely about the rabbits.

Oh I loved the giant rabbits . Much prefer the made-up stuff to the stuff that is in the book, but they've done wrong (Trolls, Eagles).

Elrond is half-elven

Since when?! Somehow in nine readings of LOTR (and one very painful, barely-remembered stumble through the Silmarillion), not to mention countless viewings of the films, this has completely passed me by.

Well, since the First Age.

Wiki: "He was the son of Eärendil and Elwing, and a great-grandson of Lúthien, born in Beleriand in the First Age, making him well over 6,000 years old by the time of the events described in The Lord of the Rings. Elrond's twin brother was Elros Tar-Minyatur, the first High King of Númenor.

Elrond, along with his parents, his brother, and his children, were granted a choice between Elven or human fates by the Valar. Elrond chose to live as an immortal Elf, while his twin Elros chose mortality."

Aragorn is descended from Elros and the Kings of Numenor.

Erk, I didn't know that!

HOW did I not know that.