FWIW, I think I anticipate this less than Django Unchained at this point. I refuse to read any reviews or visit anyplace like metacritic or rottentomatoes until after I have seen it for myself and made a call. I am also kind of hoping with low expectations I might walk away surprised.

I've heard the intro for 'The Two Towers' the file was corrupted and the servers couldn't present the P. Jackson intro as intended.

That's why I'm going for The Hobbit. At least I'll get to maximize that $22 by spending 3 hours in the damn theater. That $22, as far as I know, will get me a leather loveseat to share with my chick, on-call waiter service... um, yea, that's probably it. I'm sure after we suck down a few drinks and get some grub it'll have cost me $70 to see the movie. But since I don't plan on doing it often, might as well do it all-out.

Just finished marathoning the LOTR films for the zillionth time and I am pumped up for The Hobbit. I will be seeing it in 2D though.

OT: Cineopolis. Bad way to see a movie, bad way to eat dinner.

That's typical Peter Jackson. His films are bloated as hell. He does not know how to rein himself in. The fact is the LOTR trilogy, which I liked a great deal, are also bloated. King Kong is ridiculously bloated.

There is absolutely no reason for The Hobbit to need two films, much less three. They could have easily told this story in one three hour film. Instead, there are going to be 3, incredibly bloated films filled with filler.

Jackson does some really good work, and some of the time he's even great. However, he needs to hire a good editor and give him some freedom.

This mirrors my feelings on Jackson.

I enjoyed the LOTR films but felt that they could be better refined with some judicious editing.

Yeah, I've always contended that The Two Towers would've been better served by cutting an hour from the theatrical release and not adding to it -- there's so much stuff in the middle that serves no purpose, like Aragorn's cliched fake death and Galadriel recapping the situation.

Having seen them all back-to-back again this past weekend, I still think RETURN OF THE KING is the weakest of the lot...it's all climax and very little plot. Jackson even moved a big chunk of the TWO TOWERS story into RETURN, and it still doesn't play very well. The films definitely get weaker as they go along...FELLOWSHIP is by far the best of the three.

I don't even really see them as separate films anymore - just a long ass 11 hour film with 5 intermissions.

That's how I see them too. If I happen to turn on the two towers, I don't think of it as the second movie. I just think of it as like halfway through the entire thing.

Fine then an 11 hour movie that's starts to lose steam 3+ hours in and comepletely fizzles out at the end.

While I like the EEs of LOTR, we need to remember that there were NOT the cuts that got Best Picture noms. The only one of the extended versions that I actually think adds significant material is FOTR. If they had just kept Saruman's stuff in ROTK and left out the rest of the EE material, it would have been picture perfect. I consider myself a Tolkienite and think the EEs have a lot to offer for us, but not much for everyone else.

This actually makes me wonder why his Theatrical cuts are so friggin long. Does he truly have that much clout that no one wants to tell him to cut too much?

Agreed completely.

I've been nervous about the upcoming film ever since Del Toro left the production. I thought he would be a fresh voice amongst Jackson's inner circle of yes-men. Then the horrible announcement of making it into a trilogy.

Blah.

Don't know if you're serious or not; does this work? Lately shaky cam has been doing a number on me at the theaters.

I thought the pace of Fellowship was swift with little filler. Return was extremely bloated with severe false endings. As a viewer, I felt exhausted and relieved when it truely ended.

If I remember correctly from the documentaries, I believe the first cut of the film was like 4.5 hours long so Jackson had a lot of trimming to do.

I kinda figured on both accounts. Care to share your experience?

Given the motion sickness issue, he might have tasted his dinner twice.


I am also kind of shocked to see how many people now think LOTR wasn't as great as they remembered it. I am thinking that when FOTR came out in 2001, many people were looking for something pure escapist with clear cut good guys and bad guys . The nation was just over three months distanced from 9/11, and I recall many articles being written as to how audiences were more open to such movies at the time.

Could be. I think people were also ready for a good fantasy film 2 years after Episode I.

The first harry Potter was also released the month before FOTR and did huge business too.

The whole LOTR trilogy still holds up very well for me.

Not only that, but that was more than 10 years for the first film and almost 10 years since the last film. It's a generational thing. Some folks are probably all jaded now and are "over it" due to them being older and what not. I also don't think any of those years (I'm not sure though) had that many blockbusters opening in those same years like this year has. It's been a crowded year and we still Django on Christmas.

They had quite a few blockbusters, but they didn't have $150 million+ blockbusters opening every weekend during the summer or every few days during Christmas like we do now.

I too am wondering if time can get you out of the mindset for something like LOTR and fantasy type stuff. I still like it, but I will admit that with time I am not as enthused by this kind of stuff as I used to be when I was younger and actually believed in the "good will conquer all" messages the movies carried. I honestly think that what struck me as noble and profound back then might now strike me as stuff from people with no grip on reality.

In terms of pacing , FOTR took its sweet time getting going as well. However, back then people probably had more patience, and it was also a bit before every blogger declared themselves a movie critic. I guess PJ might learn a lesson similar to those of Spielberg in that you can't make a movie in the same style as you once did back in the day and expect people to still buy into it. I truly believe there is no way Jaws would get made the exact way it was in 1974 today and be a hit.

Wife and I just re-watched the FOTR EE not long ago, and we still loved it.

People have enjoyed the novels for over 50 years now, I think the movies will still have an audience for awhile.

I don't doubt that, but I think the pool of potential audience for this kind of movie may have shrunk since then. I am listening to the soundtrack as I type and was delighted to hear both "Blunt the Knives" and "Misty Mountain" from the books. However, if I had not read and were unable to make that connection, it wouldn't mean much to me and come across as silly. The first time out PJ knew to leave stuff like that out of the theatrical versions. I remember loving the first one and people who were casual fans (i.e. watched the movies, but hadn't read the books) liking it somewhat as well. However, I think that over the past decade the interest of the casual fan has waned a bit, and those who see this one will realize they are just not into it anymore.

People were crying when Return of the King ended as they walked out of the theater. I still get all emotional and shit during that scene: "You bow to no one" in ROTK. It was like I was on a journey with these hobbits for the past 3 years.

I look forward to The Hobbit with that same amount of enthusiasm. I think that's why PJ may have wanted to divide the films up. He wanted to give people a run for their money and transport you back to middle earth to feel what you felt at the beginning of the LOTR films. It's a very romantic notion. I'm down for it.