Of the four negative reviews posted as of the time I checked Rottentomatoes, three seem valid, but the one where the guy bashes Tolkien and the proceeds to belittle people who like this kind of movie should be thrown out. He is clearly using the review to voice his personal opinions on more than just the movie itself.

Some of the comments extracted from the good reviews are pretty lukewarm though.

So, they are essentially the Tolkien books with some Jackson tweeks here and there?

Wait, I'm real late to the party, but this is a fuckin' trilogy?!?! Oh boy.

Correct.

Hell, the LOTR trilogy had major tweaks and all the Tolkien fanboys went nuts over Jackson not including Tom Bombadil or the Scouring of the Shire.

I'm actually glad Tom wasn't included and I thought the way Saruman was handled in the ROTK was way better than the weird editing of the theatrical cut that did not have him in it at all. I remembered Christopher Lee getting upset and didn't even attend the premiere, because he said, "what was the point?" Glad he came onboard and recorded an audio commentary for ROTK EE, though.

This mythology, or the way Jackson has set it up to be, deserves more of everything. The Hobbit feature(s) will tie in to the LOTR world that came before it.

Okay, so he's adding stuff that wasn't in the text... not only does my "extraneous filler" comment still stand, it's even more apt.

I've already explained it. Don't forget that he'll also be pulling from the Appendices just like he did for all 3 LOTR films.

Sounds like Jackson may be having the same problem with this he did with King Kong. He takes too long to get things going and is expanding too much.

Middle Earth is HUGE. King Kong's universe wasn't.


I don't think he could ever run out of material with these adaptions of the Tolien worlds.

True, but you have to admit there is no real need to bloat these movies this way. Granted, I'm re-reading Hobbit and there are many instances where Tolkien simply wrote "they talked of ..." that could be greatly expanded. That doesn't mean they had to do such.

I will say that the problem people seem to have is that this one is not as serious in tone as LOTR. However, that's just how Hobbit was written and intended. It's NOT LOTR, it's a different story in the same universe.

Yes, the book is a light tale, NOT the films, which is why I think Jackson can get away with it. Not only get away with it, but do a stellar job like he did with that first trilogy.

Also, if he weren't trying to tie his film together with the LOTR trilogy of films then Frodo, Legolas, and plenty of other characters that were not in The Hobbit story to begin with would even be in the Hobbit films, but since he's not adapting it straight from the source (as he shouldn't) then it's okay.

The more, the merrier.

granted it already was a long movie even in extended form, I was hoping Jackson could have at least had Kong munching and stomping on the island natives like in the original - instead he made Kong more sympathetic and more lovey-dovey over Ann.

It would be interesting if when the trilogy comes out on DVD if it became a true director's cut. Be great to see this cut in half. I suppose there will be fans doing exactly that when they get a chance.

I'm not liking the sound of this and I'm really losing interest in going.

I thought more theaters were upgrading and featuring the movie in Dolby Atmos - yet I've seen nothing on Dolby's website suggesting this...

I've never read the Appendices. Did a lot of the stuff in the Appendices happen during the time of the Hobbit? If I remember right, the events in the Hobbit happened like 50 or 60 years before the events in The Lord of the Rings. Unless a lot of stuff in the Appendices happened during that time period, I don't see how Jackson could pull much from the Appendices and make it flow properly. I mean how can you incorporate material that happens hundreds of years after the Hobbit or hundreds of years before the Hobbit into the Hobbit? I believe the Appendices talk about what happened to Aragorn during his reign as king. That ends up being well over 100 years after the Hobbit ends.

What kind of stuff will he be able to take from the Appendices that would make logical sense?

it'd make more sense to incorporate some of the stories from The Silmarillion

Yeah but to my knowledge, they don't own the rights to the Silmarillion so nothing from it can be used.

You are correct.

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/2220...the-appendices

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hvwX_ng28Q8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Great seeing them all together, but I am surprised the compositing doesn't look better. If you'll notice from the close-up of Galadriel in both trailers (from this scene), they changed the background from a more natural look to the pink, sunrise setting.

The current reviews sort of reflect what I was worried about the most - Jackson goes way too fanboy on the whole thing, which is a little disappointing to hear.

But fans will love it.

<object width="650" height="475"><param name="movie" value="http://www.traileraddict.com/emd/66876"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.traileraddict.com/emd/66876" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" wmode="transparent" width="450" height="275" allowFullScreen="true"></embed></object>

What does that mean exactly?

More interested in squeezing every detail in over making a quality movie.