Hopefully I will see it next week!

In IMAX, ideally, so I can see the 9-minute Star Trek preview too...

I've been to The Hobbit, there and back again! Saw it on IMAX when it came out last Thursday and I simply had the time of my life!

So far, it has greatly surpassed my expectations--which, of course, were very high. I'm a huge LOTR/Tolkien/Middle Earth fan after all. Anyway, the detailing (scenery, buildings, costumes, and all) was superb, the characters spectacular...and I don't mind the changes which took place in the plot, in contrast to that of the book. It made the story all the more interesting.

And like Lady Vilisse Mimetes said, I enjoyed seeing Middle Earth in its vibrant era. No dead trees, bogs, and marshes covering the entire land.

By the way, I have a greater appreciation for dwarves now. Mind if I ask those who watched who their favourites are among the thirteen?

By the way, is the field they were chased down by wargs in the same as in The Fellowship when Arwen and Frodo were chased down by the Nazgul? They look so similar, and I'd love the continuity in locations.

Going to see it on Sunday with some friends. Unfortunately, none of them have read anything other than LoTR and the Hobbit, so we won't be able to discuss the complexities of the Unfinished Tales, etc.

I come away with mixed reactions (which is to be expected when you're a book purist ), but mostly good feelings with the movie.


Possibly. I can't recall if the Fellowship scene was rocky or not, but those two scenes should have occurred in roughly the same Middle-Earth geography so that's a distinct possibility.

I felt the same way. It stinks not being able to discuss the Necromancer or Istari parts in their proper contexts.

I hope to come in here with a large post of analyzation later, but I'm waiting to compare bruises with a fellow book-purist first.

I felt the same way. It stinks not being able to discuss the Necromancer or Istari parts in their proper contexts.

I hope to come in here with a large post of analyzation later, but I'm waiting to compare bruises with a fellow book-purist first.

Well, some of the people I'm going with haven't read any of the books (horrors!) or even seen the movies (how is that possible?) so we will certainly have bruises.

And I have a feeling that the Necromancer or Istari will probably be one of the main sources of confusion.

I'm looking forward to seeing this, hopefully, soon after Christmas. At the same time, I am so loyal to books that I have to remember to turn off my automatic "That didn't happen!", "That character shouldn't be there!", "How could they change that!?!" comments or I probably won't enjoy it as much. That said, my sisters and I are even planning to dress up and completely enjoy ourselves, so I'm looking forward to it. And I love what I've heard of the soundtrack already!

Going to see it tonight, in 3D with the high frame rate. Can't wait. *seriously*

Can anyone with in-depth knowledge of Tolkien lore remember a location of a textual reference for Radagast's sleigh? When I saw it in the movie I was struck with the odd feeling that that detail was correct -- that I had read that queer piece of information somewhere -- but for the life of me I can't remember where it might be.

I watched it and loved it. I think my favorite part is when Balin is telling Bilbo and Kili and Fili why Thorin hates Orcs so much. And he's just standing there with the wind blowing around, and when the story is nearly done, he turns around and all the Dwarves are there, standing to attention and listening intently.

Ori is a cute Dwarf--"I don't like green food!" And I loved Rivendell.

I've heard a lot of comments that this Middle-Earth doesn't look like the Middle-Earth from the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I think, however, that the scenes look just quite like they should. The Hobbit was some 60 or so years before the Lord of the Rings happened, and it was a better Middle-Earth with an amount of peace in the land. There would be cause for all that beauty in the mountains and the valleys, as darkness had not yet settled then.

(Just my two cents. )

*ish Galadriel too* *high-fives Faith*

I had that feeling too...can't remember where I read it.

It's one of those ridiculous yet totally plausible and appropriate elements that Peter Jackson keeps pulling out of his magic hat. Like Legolas sliding down the Mumakil's (yes, I know it's spelled wrong, I don't have time to dig out my special characters) trunk.

I've heard a lot of comments that this Middle-Earth doesn't look like the Middle-Earth from the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I think, however, that the scenes look just quite like they should. The Hobbit was some 60 or so years before the Lord of the Rings happened, and it was a better Middle-Earth with an amount of peace in the land. There would be cause for all that beauty in the mountains and the valleys, as darkness had not yet settled then.

(Just my two cents. )

How so?
Though the potential danger that besets the North during Frodo's time is very great -- that threat is most times distant. During Bilbo's time, however, the Wild places are a large threat. West of the Misty Mountains does not pose much of a problem Theoretically. Practically, the journey to Imladris and through the Misty Mountains turned out to be much more dangerous than anticipated due to the unexpected traveling habits of trolls and goblins, respectively., but just East of the Misty Mountains, the Wild Parts are rife with goblins and wargs that are causing no end of mischief and strife. Beyond that, you approach Mirkwood and Dol Guldor. Both places extremely dangerous -- the latter a place of your worst nightmares. Contrary to what the movie showed, the Necromancer had been active for a long period of time -- though he does seem to be relatively contained (which is to his advantage, considering his motive, so I guess that is to be expected) -- and the lands surrounding his castle were to be avoided by everyone at all costs. Finally, you arrive at the Lonely Mountain which -- due to the current resident -- has long been lonely in more than just the geographic sense.
I cannot recall, but Gondor and Rohan probably had more peace during Bilbo's time, but the North would be a different story.

DISCLAIMER: All these facts are from my memory and are therefore subject to be fallible. XD

Apparently, I'm most like Kíli.

Well...I thought that maybe, though the Necromancer had been abroad for some parts already, much of Sauron's works and forces did not begin to spread, in the sense that it did not affect the land. In The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers, we begin to see them uprooting the trees, destroying the land, and all that, but there was not much of that in The Hobbit. On the contrary, you're probably right that Gondor and Rohan could have had more peace, but the path that Bilbo and the rest of the Dwarves traveled could be more perilous. *shrugs* This is all from memory, too, so don't take my word for anything. It's been some time since I last picked up the books to read.

My biggest dislike about this was how dark it seemed. Yes, LotR is dark, but this seemed much darker than LotR.