Movie News

The Official HOBBIT Titles And Release Dates!

Published at: May 30, 2011, 2:19 p.m. CST by Nordling

Nordling here.

We've known about this unnofficially since March, but it's official now - New Line, MGM, and Warner Brothers have announced that Peter Jackson's HOBBIT films are titled THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY, to be released December 14, 2012, and THE HOBBIT: THERE AND BACK AGAIN, to be released December 13, 2013.

The titles are very much from the books, and appropriate for the films, I'd say.  So much of the cast from THE LORD OF THE RINGS is returning - some of them who weren't in THE HOBBIT originally, but I trust Peter Jackson and I think he'll make the characters work in these films.  I'm especially curious to see Saruman (Christopher Lee) as it was around the time of THE HOBBIT that Saruman decided that he wanted the Ring for himself and it should be a quietly malevolent performance, Saruman plotting without Gandalf suspecting anything amiss at all.  Lee should be perfect at this.

I'm becoming more accustomed to the added story that Jackson, Boyens, and Walsh are bringing to the prequels - as any HOBBIT fan knows, an awful lot was happening behind the scenes while Bilbo was on his adventure, and if the films address that, I think it's going to be quite interesting to see.

Nordling, out.

Readers Talkback

comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • May 30, 2011, 2:21 p.m. CST

    So Part 2 comes out before Part 1?!

    by qbert455

    ;)

  • May 30, 2011, 2:21 p.m. CST

    So the 2nd part is out before the 1st part? Radical!

    by Peter Yates

  • May 30, 2011, 2:23 p.m. CST

    ?

    by bass

    The second movie's coming out before the first? Guess it doesn't really matter, since it's one day after the Mayan calendar ends anyways... :-) Given that, this will be one where getting to an advance screening will be imperative. I'd like to put in my ticket request for BNAT that year NOW please.

  • May 30, 2011, 2:23 p.m. CST

    December 14th 2012 - Too Damn Long

    by Drunken Irishman

    Seriously, hurry the fuck up! I have no patience at all!!!

  • May 30, 2011, 2:26 p.m. CST

    Get ready for 'Lord Of The Rings Episode I: Attack of the Hobbits"

    by Bill Brasky

  • I'd be excited if this was 2005 and you hadn't of wasted everyone's time and money on yet another remake of a movie about a giant fucking gorilla. Or made a horribly shitty movie from The Lovely Bones which was a fucking wretched book to begin with. But now you've decided to shove in as much bullshit from Rings into this and make two flicks out of a very thin book. Go FUCK YOURSELF ASSHOLE!!!

  • May 30, 2011, 2:27 p.m. CST

    Me Personally? I can't fuckin wait!

    by Bill Brasky

  • May 30, 2011, 2:28 p.m. CST

    THE HOBBOT 1: DANCING QUEENS!!! THE HOBBIT 2: MAGIC BOOGALOO!!!

    by CreepyThinMan

  • May 30, 2011, 2:38 p.m. CST

    I usually don't say this kinda tired shit, but...

    by Winston Smith

    ...all the "haters" are gonna be the first people in line come December 2012.

  • May 30, 2011, 2:38 p.m. CST

    Cast Bard the Bowman already!

    by SoupDragon

    ....I have money riding on this!

  • May 30, 2011, 2:39 p.m. CST

    Looking forward to them

    by AlienFanatic

    I have faith that Jackson has a good sense of what "fits" within the Tolkien narrative and what doesn't. Even though he'll be adding quite a bit that wasn't in the Hobbit books, he'll have enough reference material in the Silmarillion, Lost Tales, etc., that he'll be able to make whatever he adds seem appropriate. I like the idea that we'll see Jackson's take on the machinations that were going on, for example, in Mirkwood (between the Necromancer/Sauron and probably Saruman), while Bilbo was going about his adventure. The 3D might be a disappointment, and I hope there are enough 2D showings that I can see it that way instead, but I think anyone but the hardcore purists will enjoy the final product.

  • May 30, 2011, 2:40 p.m. CST

    Why do we have to wait a whole year between the two films?

    by TheGhostWhoLurks

    The whole thing's being filmed at the same time. Release one in December, 2012 and the next in the Summer, 2012. Why waste time and annoy people with the long delay. Plus, people have more time to see the film multiple times in the Summer. Silly release schedule.

  • May 30, 2011, 2:40 p.m. CST

    catchtheman, yes it's been too long...

    by jazzdownunder

    ... but you know what they say about good things and those who wait. As for your diatribe about the book being "thin", I have to wonder whether you ever actually READ the book. Yes, it may not be the door stop that the 3 combined volumes of LOTR was, but it was written in a very different way - specifically for children, with LOTS of things happening. The action/event:walking ratio in The Hobbit is far higher. Off the top of my head... trolls, Beorn, riddles in the dark, spiders, Elf King, Laketown ... and all that before they even get to Smaug and all without acknowledging the background events that connect the story more directly to LOTR. Bringing those events to the foreground is more than justified, it's positively demanded!

  • May 30, 2011, 2:42 p.m. CST

    Has Christopher Lee signed on?

    by ltgalloway

    Last I heard he was still in negotiations. Though I don't expect there will be any problem, I thought he has yet to be officially cast.

  • May 30, 2011, 2:44 p.m. CST

    Why does my precum leak into my foreskin when I see Elijah Wood?

    by Robert79797979

    hmm?

  • May 30, 2011, 2:51 p.m. CST

    Hobbit origins?

    by fearless_freep

    "No, that's just a hobo and a rabbit. But they're making a Hobbit." - Bender

  • May 30, 2011, 2:53 p.m. CST

    This shouldn't really be called "The Hobbit"

    by ShabbyBlue

  • May 30, 2011, 2:53 p.m. CST

    It should be titled "Lord of the Rings Begins"

    by ShabbyBlue

  • May 30, 2011, 2:54 p.m. CST

    Or perhaps "Lord of the Rings Rises"

    by ShabbyBlue

  • May 30, 2011, 2:54 p.m. CST

    Hobbit and Superman in the same month?

    by Judge Briggs

    Awesome. So. Awesome.

  • May 30, 2011, 2:54 p.m. CST

    I really doubt lee will be in this for two reasons

    by emeraldboy

    one is his age. two is his hatred of directors who edit his work. jackson found that out. you dont edit christopher lee and woe betide anyone who. does. just ask lord deeley and the director of the whicker man.

  • May 30, 2011, 2:55 p.m. CST

    People who double-post are fucktards...

    by GBH

  • May 30, 2011, 2:55 p.m. CST

    People who double-post are fucktards...

    by GBH

  • May 30, 2011, 2:55 p.m. CST

    Anyone know where in the story the first film ends?

    by jrb

    I'll have to reread the book (it's been a while). I can't remember offhand where the natural break point would be. Perhaps after Bilbo finds the Ring and escapes the mountain? I like how they divided the three LOTR films even though the story breaks didn't mirror the books (Shelob scene). Regardless, I have complete faith in Jackson's creative team. Can't wait for December 2012.

  • May 30, 2011, 2:58 p.m. CST

    Because it's more of a LOTR film than a true Hobbit film

    by ShabbyBlue

    If they just stuck with making a film true to the book, it would be one film. But shoehorning in all the LOTR characters with unnecessary cameo filler scenes is what's making this two films. Pure greed, compromising artistic integrity.

  • May 30, 2011, 3:11 p.m. CST

    Incoporating more backstory

    by shutupfanboy

    I have zero problem with showing where other people were during this time. I kinda wish they got Viggo and Liv back to at least touch on Aragon.

  • May 30, 2011, 3:12 p.m. CST

    Releasing them a year apart is a mistake.

    by alienindisguise

  • May 30, 2011, 3:12 p.m. CST

    catchtheman...

    by WONKABAR

    Lol- stop mincing words and tell us what you really think

  • May 30, 2011, 3:15 p.m. CST

    I bet they'll split with the barrels

    by the_box_drone

    Prediction: Part one will end with an image of the barrels floating down the river from Mirkwood to Laketown.

  • May 30, 2011, 3:22 p.m. CST

    so this takes place after lord of the rings?

    by DarthBlart

  • May 30, 2011, 3:24 p.m. CST

    My balls have scrunched up and I can feel the sperms seething

    by Scrunchie-Scroochie

    Can't. Fucking. Wait.

  • May 30, 2011, 3:31 p.m. CST

    turd -- wrong

    by AssyMuffJizz

    Saruman pushed to drive Sauron out of Dol Guldur because his studies led him to the conclusion that the One Ring might be found in the nearby river Anduin, and his only hope of finding it was to get Sauron and his forces out of the area. By the time of THE HOBBIT, he was already hoping to become the new Lord of the Rings.

  • May 30, 2011, 3:39 p.m. CST

    turd_has_risen_from_the_gravy not for me

    by Ricardo

    For me, it will be hate now, hate when it's released, hate later on. I'm consistent on my hate.

  • May 30, 2011, 3:52 p.m. CST

    @melonman re:Lee's age

    by AlienFanatic

    Yes, he is 89 and rather frail now. Sadly, we all age and at last he's succumbing to it and slowing down. However, Saruman need not be mobile, Lee's voice is still resonant and strong, and they can use doubles and facial replacement technology (as used in The Social Network) to give him the illusion of mobility by using his face on another actor's body. My understanding is that he signed last year to be a part of the films, and I have little doubt that as long as he remains in good health, and his voice is still as mellifluous as ever, that we'll see him in the final product.

  • May 30, 2011, 4:16 p.m. CST

    Nordling "trusts" Jackson. But does he have faith in him?

    by Subtitles_Off

    Snyder's Superman is so-much soggy seconds.

  • May 30, 2011, 4:16 p.m. CST

    Firstly...

    by jake the muss

    Firstly, catchtheman: take a blood pressure pill, have a coke and a smile and go back in there and tell those fuckin' niggers to chill out. The Silmarillion is a relatively thin book, but to tell that in film would require more episodes than all the LOTR, Trek, Harry Potter and Star Wars films have numbered so far. It's that dense. Secondly, Christopher Lee has officially signed on, but not yet been officially announced. Don't take it from me, it's on his official website (pending his health being up to it - he just turned 89): http://christopherleeweb.com/story/sir-christopher-returns-hobbit

  • May 30, 2011, 4:19 p.m. CST

    What part does Joseph Gordon Levitt play?

    by Subtitles_Off

    Or Bradley Cooper?

  • May 30, 2011, 4:20 p.m. CST

    Chistopher Lee's age & health

    by Nautilus_nrm1

    Jackson is going to nail down Lee's performances early in the filming process, I'm quite sure. Given that the films will basically be filmed back-to-back, if not at the same time, this will allow production costs to be split between the two films, and gives the advantage of getting the actors performances in less time. Even if you're not a religious person, lets all pray for Christopher Lee's health!

  • May 30, 2011, 4:22 p.m. CST

    Don't mind me, I just came to the site today

    by Subtitles_Off

    for a review of ZACH GUFFALUPPAGUS GETS DRUNK AND RUBS HIS DICK ON THINGS II. It's bigger than Thor!

  • May 30, 2011, 4:24 p.m. CST

    Nope, Turd. *You're* wrong.

    by AssyMuffJizz

    Read Tolkien's "The Quest for Erebor" and "The Hunt for the Ring." By the time of THE HOBBIT, Saruman had been corrupt for at least 90 years: http://www.enotes.com/topic/Dol_Guldur "In response to the growing threat at Dol Guldur, they formed the White Council in T.A. 2463, shortly after Sauron's return to the fortress. Much later, in T.A. 2850, Gandalf infiltrated the area to probe Dol Guldur, and discovered that the evil presence whose identity he had long suspected was indeed Sauron.[14][19] The following year he pressed the White Council for an attack on Sauron. But Saruman, the head of the Council, who had become corrupted by desire for Sauron's One Ring, spoke against this move, reassuring them that without the Ring Sauron could not regain his full strength.[14][24][25] Saruman put the Council off by suggesting that the Ring had most likely been lost in the River Anduin and had been carried out to the sea.[24] ***But in fact, Saruman was himself seeking the One Ring, and in this pursuit secretly betrayed the Council.***[26] He believed the Ring lay hidden in the Gladden Fields not far from Dol Guldur, and was searching for it there. For Isildur had perished in the Gladden Fields when his army was ambushed by orcs after the defeat of Sauron — and it was Isildur who had taken Sauron's Ring and was its last known bearer. Saruman therefore did not want Sauron disturbed, hoping that if Sauron continued searching, the Ring might reveal itself while trying to reach Sauron, its one true master.[14][25] Sauron thus was left to his devices. Gandalf remained troubled by Sauron's presence, and at the White Council in T.A. 2941 he once again argued that an attack on Dol Guldur was inevitable and necessary for the security of Middle-earth and its peoples.[14][24] Saruman agreed this time, but only because he had learned two years earlier that Sauron too was searching for the One Ring in the Gladden Fields.[27] Saruman hoped too that with Sauron and his servants out of the way, he himself might have more leisure to continue the search.[28] The Council gathered its strength and drove Sauron from Dol Guldur.[14] But the victory was hollow: Sauron had foreseen and prepared in advance for the assault, and he traveled in secret to Mordor to rebuild Barad-dûr to be his new sanctuary — and Dol Guldur was shortly reoccupied by nazgûl sent by Sauron from Mordor.[14][29][30] It was not until the War of the Ring, when Saruman was unmasked and Sauron fell, that the Wise finally purged the dark influence from Dol Guldur.[31]"

  • May 30, 2011, 4:30 p.m. CST

    "Revenge of Smaug"

    by tbrosz

    Just trying out titles for the second trilogy. How many of the same people grousing about these movies were wailing for years because Jackson didn't look like he'd be making the Hobbit at all? I do have one idea for Jackson: After the movies are out, he can re-do them in a "director's cut" like Lucas, except all the CG effects will be replaced by in-camera shots, practical effects, and models.

  • May 30, 2011, 4:31 p.m. CST

    Post-Production

    by Edman

    Why do we have to wait a year between films? Very simple - post-production is the artistic reason. Editing, scoring, effects. There will certainly be some overlap, but there are things that need to be done to individual scenes and acts that will apply to one film and not the other, and there needs to be time to work on the second after the first. The other reason is financial - keeping a year between them allows several things - two dips in the pond for much - promo tie-ins, selling the Blu-ray of the first one in advance of the second to drum anticipation, etc. Lots of reasons there. But the practical one remains that the people working on one are working on both, and can't fully do both at once.

  • May 30, 2011, 4:32 p.m. CST

    Looking forward to 5 editions of Blurays of the Hobbit.

    by scrapplejoe

    I can see it now.. 1. Everyone buys film versions... thinking they have the final version. 2. Nope, extended version announced... so we have to rebuy. 3. 3D version annouced with extra scenes... 4. Bluray 2 is annouced... 1980p or some shit, and released on that format.

  • Why even have the site if the better a filmmaker is the more he gets ragged on?

  • I really hope so. Perhaps not from Peter Jackson, but maybe from another film maker with an equally strong vision and commitment. I want to see Morgoth, who was Sauron's master up there on the big screen. I'm currently reading Children of Hurin and its great. Very, very grim but great. I'm not gonna put down what Jackson is doing with The Hobbit, as yes, there was a lot going on with Gandalf when he goes off to fight against the Necromancer, maybe too much to cram into a two hour film. I imagine that he'll be referencing the various appendicies and the books of lost tales and the history of middle earth books etc to flesh things out. It's a real shame that they didn't get Ian Holm to return as Bilbo, and at first I was pretty let down at this, but I think that Martin Freeman is an inspired choice and I'm really really excited for these films.

  • May 30, 2011, 4:37 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    assymuff, actually you 'could' be wrong... "Tell me, 'friend,' when did Saruman the Wise abandon reason for madness?" This line from the movie trilogy implies that Saruman would be a friend of Gandalf and a 'goodie' at the time of The Hobbit.

  • May 30, 2011, 4:38 p.m. CST

    alienindisguise

    by slone13

    You are incorrect.

  • May 30, 2011, 4:38 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    scrapplejoe, you're moaning about double dipping on THE HOBBIT before it's even been made?! Pre-emptive strike!

  • May 30, 2011, 4:51 p.m. CST

    The Dojo does not exist in this dojo?

    by Subtitles_Off

    What the hell, Cobes, old buddy?

  • May 30, 2011, 4:51 p.m. CST

    You forgot one thing Edman...

    by Ruester

    Releasing them a year apart in December gives them a chance to rack up more Oscar nominations.

  • May 30, 2011, 4:56 p.m. CST

    Oscar talk for films that haven't been made yet.

    by Subtitles_Off

    How is that any less premature than "haters hating hately"? Wait, that's the good kind of premature. The shiny-happy, possy, rainbow-and-unicorns, "I have faith" kinda premature. So, I guess it's alright, huh?

  • May 30, 2011, 5 p.m. CST

    Niecy Nash is not dead.

    by Subtitles_Off

    Who defuck is Sean Kingston though?

  • May 30, 2011, 5:06 p.m. CST

    hey catchtheman

    by hitchhiker42

    You're going to shell out $12 a pop to see these movies anyways and then blow your load on the computer forums going "ZOMG PETER JACKSON IS TEH SEXII I LURVE HIS MOVIES!!!11!!"

  • May 30, 2011, 5:12 p.m. CST

    Not as excited as I should be and not sure why...

    by some dude

  • May 30, 2011, 5:14 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    Subs, "the good kind of premature"... Makes me thinks of those teenage fumbles with Vicky and Nicky when a rub in the right place could set the artillery off! Haha! How's the movie watching going? As usual i'm still catching up on last years crop, last week saw SCOTT PILGRIM and SOCIAL NETWORK. Neither really blew me away. These were the critics best of 2010?!

  • May 30, 2011, 5:22 p.m. CST

    You tards are un—fucking—believable.

    by nico_laos

    Ten years ago the LOTR films were universally enjoyed. No one was talking shit because everyone was busy watching and re-watching those masterpieces. All of us were patiently waiting for the next one to come out so we could be first in line for the midnight showing. Now, in 2011, the tardbackers have struck again. Everything popular is shit. Soon, even Inception will be hated by you basement dwelling virgins ... or has that already begun? I can't wait until The Dark Knight Rises approaches its release date. The hate on here for The Dark Knight is going to be legendary.

  • May 30, 2011, 5:30 p.m. CST

    Actually, Cobes, if you want to see the best films of 2010...

    by Subtitles_Off

    Give MOTHER, L'ILLUSIONNISTE, and MARWENCOL a view. I thought SOCIAL NETWORK was better than it had any business being. SCOTT PILGRIM was a whole lot of loud worthless. I'm still averaging about 15 movies a month. Down from my record of 45 back when I wasn't working. So far, the only contender for a good movie this year is RANGO. "If this were heaven, kid, we'd all be eating Pop-Tarts with Kim Novak." I haven't seen TREE OF LIFE yet because, with thirty screens within five minutes of my neighborhood, there just aren't enough for anything besides THOR, HANGOVER II, PANDA 2, and PIRATES. Jebus Chrissy --- even Johnny Depp's savings account couldn't have needed another PIRATES movie.

  • May 30, 2011, 5:32 p.m. CST

    "universally enjoyed"

    by Subtitles_Off

    You do know what "universally" means, don't you? As for INCEPTION, there have always been people who have rejected that. It might surprise you, many of them aren't even "tards," you vicious little cretin.

  • May 30, 2011, 5:36 p.m. CST

    It was especially popular on Pluto.

    by Subtitles_Off

    Since they were down-graded from planethood, tourism has really fallen off, and there's nothing to do besides walk around and talk about battles.

  • May 30, 2011, 5:36 p.m. CST

    Inception much better than any LOTR movie

    by double_l88

    I don't think either was universally enjoyed. The main guy on this site did not like inception, which is odd, considering how great it is, and how much crap on here gets postive reviews.

  • May 30, 2011, 5:38 p.m. CST

    Some people just crack me up!!!

    by notcher

    I love it when someone says "How can you trust Jackson who fucked up The Lord of the Rings to do any better with The Hobbit?" I mean, really, they say that as if the whole world agreed that TLOTR sucked and like it winning Best Picture never happened. Fucking unbelievable!!! I will be easy to please and say I can't wait to see these.

  • May 30, 2011, 5:40 p.m. CST

    dojo

    by AssyMuffJizz

    In the context of the film adaptations, you're right. In the context of the source material, I'm right. So everyone's happy.

  • May 30, 2011, 5:40 p.m. CST

    you blasphemers...

    by dcut75

    Christopher Lee is a god, he'll never die!

  • May 30, 2011, 5:42 p.m. CST

    Shakespeare in Love won Best Picture

    by double_l88

    Over The Thin Red line and Private Ryan no less, so that does not mean much. FOTR was by far the best one, imo.

  • May 30, 2011, 5:46 p.m. CST

    These films will not be as popular as LOTR

    by ScoobySnack

    Don't get me wrong... I'm looking forward to see these movies, but I don't see either of them doing anywhere near as well as any of the LOTR films. Those hit at the right time in the culture for fantasy to cross over to huge mainstream success. These two movies will make money for sure, but I suspect they'll be much more popular overseas than here. By the time they're released, people will be so over Middle Earth, that many will likely view these movies as a cheap cash-in on LOTR, rather than a relatively faithful adaptation of the book that started it all. I say no more than $200MM in box office for the first one.

  • May 30, 2011, 5:47 p.m. CST

    Christopher Lee is immoratal

    by zooch

  • May 30, 2011, 5:49 p.m. CST

    I dunno, l88.

    by Subtitles_Off

    I walked out of INCEPTION after fifty lousy, brown, talky minutes, but I sat through all one-hundred and twelve hours of LoTR (seemed like). Neither is an experience I think back on with much fondness.

  • May 30, 2011, 5:54 p.m. CST

    Say again after me

    by Son of the Suns

    The Hobbit is not a prequel.

  • May 30, 2011, 5:54 p.m. CST

    ROTK was way too long

    by double_l88

    With all the crap that is out, how anybody could walk out of something as well written and well acted as Inception, I don't get. ROTK was too long though.

  • May 30, 2011, 5:56 p.m. CST

    I'm just so happy.

    by bubcus

    They're making the films and Peter Jackson is at the helm. It's just... awesome! I'm there opening night.

  • May 30, 2011, 5:56 p.m. CST

    Release Dates and Lee

    by sambrook

    Why release them a year apart? Post-production. And to all the cretins saying how that it will fail and they should release them in the summer and more people will see it - it didn't do the original films any damage being released a year apart, at Christmas. ROTK was the first film since Titanic do break a billion dollars worldwide. So I don't think Peter Jackson's reading your comments and shitting himself that he's missed a trick. They're the perfect films for the Christmas holidays when families - as in grandparents as well, not just parents trying to keep their kids entertained - all go to the cinema together. As for Lee - he's officially signed, the full press release detailing the titles and release dates confirms his involvement. They do seem to be announcing some key roles very late and low key. It took them ages to announce Hugo Weaving was back as Elrond.

  • INCEPTION may be some things, but it is neither of those.

  • May 30, 2011, 6:01 p.m. CST

    subtitles off

    by double_l88

    If you don't think Inception was well acted, especially the scenes between Dicaprio and Cotillard, you do not know what good acting is.

  • May 30, 2011, 6:05 p.m. CST

    scoobysnack

    by sambrook

    I'll take that bet. No more than $200m you say? Done. Of course they'll do better overseas, all three of the original films did as well, but they'll do absolutely fine domestic as well. And they success of them came out of nowhere. There wasn't anyone crying out for fantasy. The only bit of nice timing was Harry Potter being released a month beforehand and helping promote this film to a wider audience. With Potter ending this year it'll leave a gap in the market and how better to fill it than with a revival of Middle-Earth? People still remember these a huge epics on the big screen that appealed to all of the family. And 8 years since ROTK is long enough for a nostalgia-filled appetite to build up but not so long that people will have moved on. Of course neither of us can be proven right or wrong for over a year and a half at least but I honestly think that once the general public sees posters featuring Gandalf or trailers featuring The Shire and *that* music they'll be sold on returning to Middle-Earth.

  • May 30, 2011, 6:22 p.m. CST

    God bless Peter Jackson for giving us quality entertainment.

    by droids22

    It's not annoying talking animals, headache inducing robots,etc... thank God!

  • May 30, 2011, 6:31 p.m. CST

    "I walked out of Inception so...

    by ATrue

    that I would forever be able to claim that I did. Have you noticed that I mention my Inception out-walking in pretty much every talkback? Possibly the proudest moment of my life"--subtitles_off

  • May 30, 2011, 6:48 p.m. CST

    re: Sambrook

    by SK229

    I think you're quite right... I don't enjoy the LOTR films now anywhere near as much as when they came out. I didn't care about The Hobbit really, anymore, but I'll be damned if it didn't feel like 2002 all over again when I saw Jackson's first bts diary. I suspect many others will be hypnotized by the music, same actors, the fun nostalgia of the time the originals came out, etc. and these movies will make serious bank.

  • May 30, 2011, 6:59 p.m. CST

    subtitles_off fuck yeah it's better

    by Proman1984

    That's what being a fan is all about. There is nothing wrong with anticipating something and thinking it will do well. Beats spamming talkbacks with endless replies and pissing in other people's cups everytime. But I guess some people just don't see it.

  • May 30, 2011, 7:06 p.m. CST

    The Adventures of Little Bro

    by cylon_conspiracy

    The Hobbit, Pt. 1

  • May 30, 2011, 7:32 p.m. CST

    "That's what being a fan is all about."

    by Subtitles_Off

    Here's where I say something like, "And then you grow up and see a girl's naked parts."

  • May 30, 2011, 7:47 p.m. CST

    subby u are STILL an asshole of the highest order. take a fucking bow

    by Hey_Kobe_Tell_Me_How_My_Ass_Tastes

    one would think after the ass whuppin that bad wolf laid on you in the torchwood tb - oh yeah i laughed my ass off at how your pretentious, condescending piece-of-horseshit-self- got pwned that you would lay low. but like the attention whore troll yes, troll that you are, you just keep coming back for more. it was hilarious watching you flail about in that tb, swinging your dick with a pair of tweezers, acting like you knew it all, when in fact you showed that you know jack shit. conflating? oh yeah he ripped you to pieces with that one. i will say this - i am truly glad you have a job, i sincerely mean that. but you are still an asshole and i see you have stopped taking your meds as well.

  • May 30, 2011, 7:59 p.m. CST

    Childen of Hurin

    by PedroM

    There's an audiobook of it read by Christopher Lee. Give it a chance and get scared for life.

  • May 30, 2011, 7:59 p.m. CST

    I didn't walk out of inception

    by brobdingnag

    but I did fall asleep during it for about 10 minutes. It wasn't bad but it was slow and I saw it on a Friday after a very long day at the office. I don't recall the acting standing out either way.

  • May 30, 2011, 8 p.m. CST

    LOWLY DOGS!!!

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    LOTR hatorz are amongst the worst the film geek "community" has to offer. So wretched and miserable, they have to cry themselves to sleep at night with their Batman onesies and plush Boba Fett-shaped pillow.

  • true story

  • May 30, 2011, 8:08 p.m. CST

    And just look at that Bag End floor-tile!

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    AWESOME!!!

  • Yogurt from Spaceballs would be proud of Mr. Jackson!

  • May 30, 2011, 8:21 p.m. CST

    Mugato5150

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    While I was disappointed in the theatrical releases' handling of Saruman's demise, the ROTK-EE made up for that editorial choice. Are you not aware of this? Also, I don't mean to cast aspersions on your intelligence but if you thought the ending didn't make sense, then I seriously question your ability to perceive correctly.

  • May 30, 2011, 8:26 p.m. CST

    TITLE...

    by KHjLL

    I always thought the 1st would be called just... THE HOBBIT The 2nd... THE HOBBIT: THERE AND BACK AGAIN But what does it matter...

  • May 30, 2011, 9:11 p.m. CST

    Lord of the Rings: First Class

    by jackofhearts29

    Class is in session, bitches. "In a time... before time... a man... will come. Palaces... will shake. Gollums... will hiss. Orcs... will burn. And eagles... and dragons... will speak." And spiders, too. Wonder how they'll pull it off. Still, can't wait.

  • May 30, 2011, 9:12 p.m. CST

    re: Bag-End Floor Tile

    by jackofhearts29

    Yeah, the Shire's local Hole Depot was a thriving chain before the Troubled Times began.

  • May 30, 2011, 9:14 p.m. CST

    Why *wouldn't* you want to see two films?

    by kevred

    I don't get all the "this should have been one film" stuff. Are you really so impatient that you don't want any extra time spent on anything at all? That you don't want to see on screen some fleshing out of the significance of some of what happens in The Hobbit? This is a truly special story, and it's the last time we'll ever see these storylines on screen with these actors and creative teams. And that isn't worth another two hours? I don't get it.

  • May 30, 2011, 9:32 p.m. CST

    Are there haters for this?

    by jimmy_009

    How pathetic would you have to be to hate on this? After how awesome LOTR was?

  • May 30, 2011, 9:35 p.m. CST

    I'll wait for the Extended Blu Rays...

    by darthwaz1

    Extended LOTR's were so much better than theatrical, it's prob best to wait for these too.

  • May 30, 2011, 9:42 p.m. CST

    89? No age at all

    by Mr Lucas

    Gielgud was 94 in Elizabeth. George Burns was 98 in Radioland Murders. You get the idea...

  • May 30, 2011, 9:43 p.m. CST

    89? No age at all

    by Mr Lucas

    Gielgud was 94 in Elizabeth. George Burns was 98 in Radioland Murders. You get the idea...

  • May 30, 2011, 9:54 p.m. CST

    More Lore-Breaking to make a buck

    by FrodoFraggins

    Two movies is just a lame cash grab.

  • May 30, 2011, 9:55 p.m. CST

    Looking forward to these more than I probably should.

    by Carl XVI Gustaf

    Enjoyed the LOTR films, never rewatched them or thought that much about them after. But I have a feeling I will enjoy The Hobbit more, in my opinion that book is a better read than it's "sequels". That said (!), I'm quite the simpleton.

  • May 30, 2011, 9:56 p.m. CST

    One Film

    by TheLeader

    <sarcasm> Lord of the Rings should have been one film. JRRT wrote it all as one book, right? Who cares if major story elements are left out, I'm not spending more than 90 minutes of my precious time on any one story. </sarcasm> The only haters for this are people who hate going to the movies and enjoying themselves.

  • May 30, 2011, 10:06 p.m. CST

    Also...

    by TheLeader

    Peter Jackson changed a LOT in the Lord of the Rings from book to film (didn't you guys watch the appendices on the EE DVDs?), so if you were okay with those films, I'm pretty sure you'll be fine with this. And I don't consider the Hobbit a prequel to LOTR. It was written BEFORE LOTR, so the story wasn't just made up to provide backstory to the previous films (as Lucas' Trilogy That Shall Not Be Named was). He just made the later books first because those were the more universally resonant and appealing, and I'm guessing meant more to Jackson personally. As to release dates: I'm not sure you haters realize how much time post-production on films of this scale require. I guarantee you, as soon as Jackson ships film 1, he will start the post process on film 2, and just barely get it done by 12/2013. I'm willing to accept a little bit of hating on this, but at least be smart about it. Hate ACTUAL things, not figments of your own imaginations.

  • May 30, 2011, 10:07 p.m. CST

    whoops...on "One Film"

    by TheLeader

    That first paragraph is sarcasm...I guess my html "sarcasm" tags didn't make it through...

  • May 30, 2011, 10:10 p.m. CST

    the eagles

    by AssyMuffJizz

    Would've been dropped by the nazgul and a fucking tidal wave of arrows. Plus, the eagles are messengers of the Valar and, thus, never would've agreed to such a plan. And who would've been strong enough of will to drop it on the fire? No one. That's who.

  • May 30, 2011, 10:34 p.m. CST

    I didn't walk out of Inception, but...

    by Bob

    I did fall asleep while watching it at home on rental. I agree, not a bad movie, but certainly not something i would call "Best Eva!" either. And yes I did watch the rest of it during a second sitting. Plenty of better movies out there.

  • And then when he excised her, continued to leave in the bit where her Elven army turns up. This is also the guy who cut Christopher Lee out of the third movie and hence got not credit in the Oscar winning movie. Even Sean fucking Bean who appeared in flashback, got a credit. This is the man who thought 9 different endings wouldn't annoy an audience, and killed any possibility of a rousing applause because people were too busy laughing nervously, waiting for yet another fade-up from black. He made so many simple and avoidable fuck ups. I can't wait to see how he fucks up the Hobbit, and how rapidly the fan boys will rush to forgive him.

  • May 30, 2011, 11:42 p.m. CST

    hey Petey-boy, no making stuff up!

    by abe

    As long as the Petester uses actual Tolkien info laid out in his "Letters" all will be well. It's all there for anyone to read what a prequel to the LOTR should contain - by the Master himself.

  • May 31, 2011, 12:02 a.m. CST

    I've already got my tix to the LOTR:EE's @AMC in June

    by Zardoz

    How about you?

  • May 31, 2011, 12:15 a.m. CST

    Who fucking cares?

    by GreenSkinFlatHead

    Overrated series. Can't believe that anyone cares about this shit anymore! Something new please.

  • May 31, 2011, 12:25 a.m. CST

    subtitles_off

    by Balcony Fool

    Hey, look, everybody! We've got a real live poseur in the talkbacks! The likes of whom haven't been seen in years! Why, he/she is so sophisticated, he/she turns the subtitles OFF when watching all those foreign flicks us unwashed masses. Ouldn't possibly understand! I wonder if he/she went to film school? Certainly *sounds* like a freshman who's just discovering the New Wave and Italian neo-realism for the first time, but who knows? Maybe it's a bitter old fuck who failed in the biz and is left with nothing but the satisfaction of announcing to the world that popular Hollwood films suck, and explaining how bored they were with the latest hit film. Man, I wish I could be you, subtitles_off!

  • May 31, 2011, 12:35 a.m. CST

    The Hobbit Part III: Prince Poppycock's Revenge

    by spicy-mag.com

    ...just saying.

  • May 31, 2011, 12:47 a.m. CST

    Peter Jackson, please don't go George Lucas on us...

    by Franck

    ...Hobbit 1, Hobbit 2, DVD Release, DVD Extended Edition, Two Pack DVD Special Edition, Blue Ray, Extended Edition Blue Ray, Special Extended Edition Blue Ray with The Making Of, Lord of The Rings: the Complete Saga....fuck this! (OK, I'll buy them all, just make sure they're good.)

  • May 31, 2011, 12:55 a.m. CST

    Film Lee's Scenes ASAP

    by tomandshell

    Fly to England, set up a green screen, and film all of his scenes right now. Ian Holm's almost 80--don't waste time with him, either. Even if these guys don't pass away during production, there's a lot that could happen to keep them from showing up on set physically and mentally ready to work on a film of this scale.

  • May 31, 2011, 1 a.m. CST

    WHERE THE HELL ARE THE X-MEN FIRST CLASS NEWS & REVIEWS

    by theplant

    Harry, absolutely thrilled with Thor, do not like the best X-Men movie ever made ?

  • May 31, 2011, 1:52 a.m. CST

    THERE AND BACK AGAIN?? really? this is the best

    by KilliK

    title they could think of? And they bring back almost all the characters from the LOTR? and the split the story,which is not very long,into two movies? have PJ and co,become so fucking greedy now that they dont even care to keep the notion that they at least respect the original works of Tolkien? I understand why PJ had to bastardize in some degree LOTR in order to make it more commercially appealing,after all it was a very expensive production and it had to earn its costs back. BUT if Hobbit happens to be (which it is) so much difficult to be adapted into a movie aiming for a massive BO hit,and despite this fact you are determined to make this movie because you are a greedy bastard,even if it it means that you will make a complete transvestite of it,then you are pitiful and disgusting. Sorry mr PJ,although i am sure these new movies will kick ass,i wont support them simply because of the fact that it's all about the fucking money and that you disrespected once again Tolkien's vision.FUCK YOU. ps.no mention about 3D? hmmm strange..

  • May 31, 2011, 2:05 a.m. CST

    @v'shael amen to that brother

    by KilliK

    and this comes from someone who loved,really loved the PJ LOTR trilogy and defended it tirelessly against any kind of negative criticism. Then after years,i finally came into the recognition of the sad truth that PJ in reality had fucked up Tolkien's masterpiece and the motivation behind his bastardization was not to correctly adapt the books from a cinematic point of view,but how to make them as much accessible to the mainstream popcorn audience in order to sell dvds,more books,videogames and any other type of merchandise. PJ in reality is George Luca$ in disguise,or rather his New Zealand clone.FUCK HIM.

  • May 31, 2011, 3 a.m. CST

    What???

    by thebastard

    killik I'm starting to feel that I agree with you. I had hoped that the Hobbit would be a true and faithful adaptation, but including characters from LOTR? Will that even make sense? Or have any relevance to the actual book? Please do not turn this into some piece of shit cash in rehash of prequel characters that had their time and place.

  • May 31, 2011, 3:14 a.m. CST

    Christopher Lee is NOT in this

    by Mumbo

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2Od_8xyDLI&feature=player_detailpage#t=342s He can't even WIPE HIS OWN ASS. "Ooh.... ...yes, GanDALF... I think.... we should. GO. tooo ... Dol GULDUR. andddd KICK.... SaurONS.... asssss" His face is collapsing inwards. By the time they get him in front of the cameras he'll probably already look like a cat's sphincter, and have similar physical capabilities. Let the brilliant, wonderful motherfucker complete his transformation in peace.

  • May 31, 2011, 3:22 a.m. CST

    To all the vile haters...

    by Mumbo

    Even a four year old should have enough respect for Peter Jackson in this universe to quack feebly in their shitty, shitter wrappings at the mere *idea* of a hobbit film being made REGARDLESS OF WHAT HE DOES WITH IT. So unless you are actually embryonic and therefore do not have a soul.... You do not have the RIGHT. To shit all over these movies. You can't even utter a vague, slightly hesitant indication of doubt. You may not falter, you may not critique, and you certainly - do not - hate. You come in here, you ask questions, you make your shitty accusations - YOU THINK YOU KNOW. THINK YOU FUCKING KNOW. Shame on you. SHAME ON YOU!!!!!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2Od_8xyDLI&feature=player_detailpage#t=342s

  • May 31, 2011, 5:17 a.m. CST

    The Real Titles

    by aceldama

    The films really should only be called one thing, and have it be an admission of guilt on Jacksons part... The Hobbit: OK, I Know I Fucked Up And Failed With The LOTR Movies, But Give Me Another Chance. Please. I'm Broke. (If this posts multiple times, I apologize. Browser problems)

  • May 31, 2011, 5:59 a.m. CST

    Damn. Milking it...

    by Knuckleface

    The Hobbit is not two films, and I find it sad that they are defiling a wonderful little story with layers of unnecessary backstory. This is such a huge mistake, and I swear they will pay for it when the critics savage the first film.

  • May 31, 2011, 6:30 a.m. CST

    The story as broken into two parts...

    by Knuckleface

    The first movie will start out with Bilbo Baggins going about his everyday life, then Gandalf will arrive at his door, and we will go to a series of flashbacks. The flashbacks will add a lot of backstory. We'll learn the story of the Dwarves under the Mountain. Gandalf will learn of plots by Sauron to recruit Smaug for the coming war. The other rings will be gathered. There will be a high council meeting, so on and so on. Finally, after some cajoling, Bilbo will agree to join the party. The film will then follow the book all the way through Chapter 6. The battle with the trolls, the Goblins of Misty Mountains, the riddles with Gollum, and then finally the battle with the wargs and the goblins. The problem is that this means the climax of 3 out of the 5 LOTR films will end with the bloody Eagles swooping out of the clouds to save the day. (i.e. Hobbit 1, Hobbit 2, ROTK). I think the second Hobbit film will follow the book more closely, from Chapter 7 onward. Smaug will probably be fleshed out a little more though. The ending will probably tie the series together a little more as well with some kind of sinister epilogue of Suroman contacting Sauron or something.

  • May 31, 2011, 6:43 a.m. CST

    The first film will end after Chapter 6

    by Knuckleface

    The first film will start at Chapter 1 and the arrival of the Dwarves at Bilbo's hovel. Then the film will flash back to a ton of backstory about the Dwarves under the Mountain, Smaug, the gathering of the rings and the high council. After that, the story will return to the events of the novel, and follow through to Chapter 6. So you'll have the fight with the Trolls, the crossing of Misty Mountain, capture by the Goblin King, Bilbo's match of wits with Gollum, and then their escape. The film will climax with the battle against the wargs and goblins. The problem with this is that the film will end with the Eagles swooping out of the sky to save the day, just like they did in ROTK, and they will do again in Hobbit 2. By the time the Eagles save the day in Hobbit 2, it'll be as LOTR drinking game. The second film will probably follow the novel pretty closely from Chapters 7 onward. Gandalf leaves the party at this point, so we'll probably get a lot more about him and what he was doing during this period as well. This might actually be interesting. It could at least explain why Bilbo and the people of Lake Town are left to confront Smaug on their own.

  • May 31, 2011, 7:54 a.m. CST

    idiots idiots idiots

    by Lee

    Seriously if none of you assholes have anything positive to say then shut the fuck up. So what if it's two movies? So what if it's adding in stuff to link it to the LOTR movies. These are MOVIES/ADAPTATIONS of the book! If you love the book so much then stick to the book. By the way Jacksons Kong film was great, it had it's flaws but it was big and bold and exactly what a King Kong movie should be.. The same idiots balled and wailed through the differences in the LOTR movies to the books, but it doesn't matter because the movies were some of the best ever seen and Im sure the Hobbit will be just as good, exciting, moving and exceptional as the LOTR movies. Bet all you moaning assholes will be first in line to see it at your local cinema too. Fuck off

  • May 31, 2011, 7:58 a.m. CST

    Titles Should Be More Honest

    by aceldama

    The films really should only be called one thing, and have it be an admission of guilt on Jacksons part... The Hobbit: OK, I Know I Fucked Up And Failed With The LOTR Movies, But Give Me Another Chance. Please. I'm Broke.

  • May 31, 2011, 8:42 a.m. CST

    "OK, I Know I Fucked Up And Failed With The LOTR Movies"

    by D.Vader

    Yes, he failed by making millions of dollars, turning possibly millions into LOTR fans, garnering new readers, and by (in many fans eyes) making great adaptations of supremely hard-to-adapt material. Save the hyperbole for somewhere else.

  • May 31, 2011, 8:44 a.m. CST

    And yes, this SHOULD be split into TWO movies

    by D.Vader

    Have any of you read the Hobbit lately? Its one big serial full of small climaxes, escapes, and downtime. There's nothing that really builds toward one big climax. Its lots of little stories that are not well-suited toward a feature film, especially if you want to keep aspects that many fans would be upset over being cut out. If you keep insisting The Hobbit should be one movie*, then I'm glad that you are not making movies. * And using the animated movie as an example doesn't count. If that were live-action instead of animated, it'd be terrible.

  • That leaves the second movie to be filled with the Elves of Mirkwood, the spiders, Lake-Town, Smaug, and the Battle of Five Armies.

  • May 31, 2011, 8:46 a.m. CST

    Talk backers still lame 12 Year olds

    by 6 DEMON BAG

    Wow.... Using profanity and dick references......weird little children here still.

  • You clearly have no imagination.

  • May 31, 2011, 9:06 a.m. CST

    Pyscho-Rat-Attack: Lee looks totally fine in that video

    by D.Vader

    He looks healthy enough to sit on the White Council as Saruman and bark commands. No problem at all.

  • May 31, 2011, 9:23 a.m. CST

    WHY NO WORD ON X MEN FIRST CLASS ON THIS SITE

    by theplant

    I SWEAR, THE BEST MOVIE OF THE YEAR IS COMING, AND ALL WE HAVE IS ARTICLES ON STUFF WE DON'T CARE ABOUT

  • May 31, 2011, 9:33 a.m. CST

    I HOPE EVERYONE HAD A WONDERFUL MEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND

    by BSB

    Too bad our neighbors in Rochester, NY had their festivities dampened by an unfortunate food shortage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pyW6w5B7Aw&feature=player_detailpage#t=20s

  • May 31, 2011, 9:39 a.m. CST

    If I see one movie in 2012, it will be AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY

    by vezner2007

    If I can see one movie in 2013, it will be THERE AND BACK AGAIN. The LOTR movies were epic and anyone who thinks Jackson screwed them up wouldn't know a documentary from a Michael Moore mocumentary.

  • May 31, 2011, 9:49 a.m. CST

    I actually *did* walk out of Inception

    by seagrass

    But not because I wanted to. There were just so many chuckleheads walking into the movie late and then getting on their cellphones and talking and/or texting that my friend and I walked out and got tix to a later show. We then came back and enjoyed the (fantastic) film in an almost empty theater.

  • May 31, 2011, 10:17 a.m. CST

    Christopher Lee Rocks

    by HughHoyland

    Man can I remember wayy back when I was a kid in the late 70's and watching him in all those classic Hammer horror films. Christopher Lee is indeed the coolest dude ever. Still rocking at this late age. And I bet he still has it in him to do this film as well.

  • May 31, 2011, 10:38 a.m. CST

    Thoughts on the LOTR films?

    by Mr Gorilla

    My feeling is that the first film is very good, but the other two a bit disappointing - too much spectacle, not enough character. (And even the first one is arguably full of storytelling mistakes - have you read the chapter about it in Paul Gulino's book?) In 2001 the Fellowship of the Ring was so wonderful, and the first Harry Potter so very lame - I could never anticipated my current feelings about the two flim series, which is that Potter has become far more heartfelt and exciting and interesting, while the Rings descended into blockbuster boredom.

  • May 31, 2011, 10:39 a.m. CST

    But where's ringwearer9?

    by DocPazuzu

    It ain't a really retarded hatefest talkback until Ringy shows up. The rest of you haters are amateurs. Tools, yes, but strictly amateurs.

  • May 31, 2011, 11:08 a.m. CST

    Lost Interest in This when del Toro bailed...

    by Jack Desmondi

    I've never been much of a Peter Jackson fan. His films--from Dead Alive on--have always been over-stuffed, over-long, over-made and tiresome. That includes that neverending abomination of a King Kong remake.

  • May 31, 2011, 11:20 a.m. CST

    THE HAND IS PLEASED BY THIS NEWS

    by The Hand Of The Choppah

    I believe Lord Jackson's strength as an artist lies in telling the tales of Middle Earth. That he was able to convince Eddard Stark to portray brave Boromir was a masterstroke. Even if his other endeavors never achieve the same levels of greatness, his accomplishment with Lord of the Rings shall be honored for all time. So sayeth the Hand.

  • The names are perfect - taken right from the book. Plus they give me the impression the movies are going to focus mostly on the story of the book and not so much on the peripheral stuff going on that was only referred to - like the assault on Dol Guldur. If you start giving equal weight to the peripheral things you risk making a movie that's not really about anything - the LOTR was long and complex with lots of plot, but at the end of the day it was about a quest to destroy a magic ring. The Hobbit - like D. Vader says, has a lot of smaller stories and climaxes in it, but you can boil it down to a quest to reclaim a treasure as experienced by Bilbo Baggins. If Jackson started giving equal weight to the assault on Dol Guldur and other things that were supposed to be happening around the same time, the movies would become an unfocused mess and basically just a big jumbled backstory for the LOTR.

  • May 31, 2011, 11:28 a.m. CST

    RINGWEARER9 IS PART OF THE NIGHT'S WATCH

    by The Hand Of The Choppah

    He has dedicated himself to protecting our lands from the invading hordes of the Zone.

  • May 31, 2011, 12:10 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    Subs, MOTHER, L'ILLUSIONNISTE, and MARWENCOL are all probably excellent films - but i'm a simple man and just going by the titles they sound like they might be too high of brow for me... I will give a RANGO a watch though - cartoons I can cope with! Haha. Choppah, I hope you washed that hand.

  • May 31, 2011, 12:12 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    kobe_ass_tastes... You're so mongoloid your parents named you Genghis.

  • May 31, 2011, 12:49 p.m. CST

    ah - the coward cobra lai crawls out of subby ass - once again

    by Hey_Kobe_Tell_Me_How_My_Ass_Tastes

    if it smell like shit and looks like shit then you can damn sure believe it IS shit, otherwise knows as that piece of shit - the coward cobra lai you want some bubbeh, or are you just gonna snipe while i am gone - like you always do? bitch

  • May 31, 2011, 12:54 p.m. CST

    THAT PIC WOULD MAKE A GREAT AD FOR ROUND DOORS

    by BSB

  • May 31, 2011, 2:12 p.m. CST

    Appropriate milking?

    by Larry Sellers

    I hated the idea of two films at first. This is a popular notion these days with big franchises...if Return of the King were in production now it actually might have also been two films (it at least felt like two films...). However, flipping through the book again, Tolkien wrote modestly about some pretty epic happenings. It would be underwhelming to produce the prequel to three of the biggest, most successful films to date with one 2.5 hr film. There would certainly be more bitching than there is now. Also keep in mind that this isn't just an adaptation, it's got to link to the established film LOTR world as well.

  • May 31, 2011, 2:16 p.m. CST

    I love the LoR films

    by fastcars

    And all the changes Peter made. They were for the best, for a film adaptation. People like to mock the length, the many sweeping shots of mountains, the many looks between Sam and Frodo, the multiple endings - but none of that bothers me. If you were to try to chop every LoR movie to be under two hours, they'd be remarkably worse. Unlike King Kong, for example. Which dragged like crazy in the first half. Bring on The Hobbit films. And go away, snarky assholes. Time will tell if The Hobbit movies ruin LoR, like the Star Wars prequels ruined Star Wars.

  • cool, a burst of "news" activity, then back to flatline

  • ala Harry Potter.

  • May 31, 2011, 2:32 p.m. CST

    This isn't out yet? What's taking so long?

    by Andrew Coleman

    Just kidding this should be good stuff. Why not make two movies all the kids are doing it these days.

  • May 31, 2011, 2:52 p.m. CST

    Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    by THE_CHOPPAH

  • May 31, 2011, 3:21 p.m. CST

    They should cut the An Unexpected Journey title

    by performingmonkey

    Just call it The Hobbit and then the 2nd movie There And Back Again, with no Hobbit prefix. Surely everyone agrees with me on that?? An Unexpected Journey is a really bad subtitle for such a huge, important film. Okay, it references the book (kind of) but it's not impressive enough. It makes it seem like a desperate sequel's title when in fact the words THE HOBBIT are more than enough. I firmly believe they should make this change!

  • May 31, 2011, 4:22 p.m. CST

    No performingmonkey, I don't agree.

    by Dr. Strangelove

    And don't call me Shirley.

  • May 31, 2011, 4:31 p.m. CST

    Okay...

    by THE TRUE PINBACK

    This is looking better and better. I hope Peter Jackson is back on his game after that miserable LOVELY BONES chunk that he made. Oh, and WHERE THE BLAZES IS CHRISTOPHER LEE???

  • May 31, 2011, 4:34 p.m. CST

    hope he doesn't kitchen sink it

    by warrenE33

    i think the problem with KingKong and LovelyBones was : they were trying to be too many things. ... i'm mostly worried he'll try to cram a love story into the Hobbit, instead of just making it a hard core adventure about men on a mission. Makes me nervous to think back to admissions that his team had planned to have arwen at Helm's deep, so there could be more romance. eek?

  • May 31, 2011, 4:47 p.m. CST

    by realJWade

    The story of The Hobbit, while not as epic in scope as LOTR, is more pure. I love both stories, but I think Bilbo is the more interesting character, and it's his actions, the transformation he undergoes during his adventure, that paves the way for Frodo and the rest. Martin Freeman should be able to bring the whimsy and strength of Bilbo to life in a wonderful way. I don't understand why people get upset about the splitting of films into parts. Folk lost their minds when it was announced that HP7 was going to be split, but it's absolutely the best thing for the film and the fans, as it allows for a much truer adaption of the book in question. While The Hobbit is a much shorter book, and there is no doubt that Jackson and crew are taken artistic liberty with the story, the quest to the Lonely Mountain is certainly dense enough to hold up two movies, and leaves a lot of room for the interspersing of back-story throughout. All of the characters absent the book none-the-less exist in the world during this period of time, and take part in adventures on the periphery of the story, which is expanded on in supplemental material, as has been pointed out repeatedly by more knowledgeable folk than me. Again, this suggests, to me, that the resulting movie can only be better for the effort. There used to be such a thing as fans. Fans were the reason movies like this got made. Where'd all the fans go?

  • May 31, 2011, 4:50 p.m. CST

    Abe Vigoda for Saruman.

    by Knobules

  • So that I can fully enjoy this movie. I hope things are also going well for future end-of-2013 me. Maybe I will even be getting some action by then. Yep. Those are gonna be some good times.

  • May 31, 2011, 5:26 p.m. CST

    shit idea

    by Jack

  • May 31, 2011, 5:38 p.m. CST

    I bet PJ has Frank Langella on speed dial

    by JIMBOCOP

    Just in case, you know...

  • May 31, 2011, 5:50 p.m. CST

    Why a year apart

    by Nem_Wan

    There aren't a lot of precedents for simultaneous-filmed big-budget sequels but two of them, Back to the Future Parts II and III and Matrix Reloaded/Revolutions, I remember as being released too close together. It diminishes the final film to not have as much anticipation and the experience feels more obligatory. Maybe 12 months is too long and 6 months is too short, and that's why Harry Potter's "intermission" is 8 months. The nice thing about 12 months is being the same time of year should help audiences be in the same mood.

  • May 31, 2011, 7:37 p.m. CST

    tallboy6t6

    by Yan Dut

    If you watch carefully, you'll see when he tries to break the ring he grabs the axe of some other elderly dwarfly dude sitting next to him (who's too stoned to say anything about it - although having them fight to death over it would have been fun, but probably would have somewhat distracted the audiences) - hey he wouldn't risk his own freakin' beloved weapon, right?

  • May 31, 2011, 7:39 p.m. CST

    I'll ask again

    by proevad

    any news on a Mirkwood sequence and the spiders?

  • May 31, 2011, 10:15 p.m. CST

    Hey, subtitles_off ... you're so clever ...

    by nico_laos

    The way you take a word like 'universal' and apply a literal meaning. Nevermind that the majority of the times the word is used it's used as a metaphor. But to answer you're question. Yes. I know what the fucking word means. Do you? Apparently not, otherwise you would've known better before you tried to make people think you're smart. By the way, have you ever heard of universal cables or universal remotes? You should call up Radio Shack and ask if those cables work with Plutonian TVs. My god, you're a fucking dumbass.

  • June 1, 2011, 6:28 a.m. CST

    People are complaining about hypothetical blu ray releases

    by slappy jones

    People are actually here complaining about shit that doesn't exist yet. Amazing. There is nothing you fucks won't complain about. Double dipping hobbit blu rays??? They have been shooting for what two months? And you are complaining about double dipping blu rays THAT DON'T FUCKING EXIST! You are all fucking mental.

  • June 1, 2011, 9:37 a.m. CST

    Meh...no interest...WHATSOEVER

    by Damned if I can login

    Eventually....someone...will adapt *Tolkien's* work properly, and it won't be Peter Jackson.

  • June 1, 2011, 10:12 a.m. CST

    I disagree about the Harry Potter "milking it" comment

    by Damned if I can login

    Should've been doubling up since The Goblet of Fire. The last few films have seemed extremely rushed, with lotsa subplots removed. And I don't really have an issue with The Hobbit being 2 films, as long as the extended running time is utilized to adapt Tolkien's story...which it won't be. The extended running time will be there to include all the junk that's being inserted to "fix" the novel.

  • June 1, 2011, 10:58 a.m. CST

    If The Hobbit were one movie...

    by D.Vader

    Out goes Beorn. Out goes Spiders of Mirkwood. Rivendell and the Misty Mountains gets condensed. The Gollum scene is big. The Smaug scene is big. The Battle of Five Armies is shortened. Laketown is shortened. That's likely the only way The Hobbit could get made as one movie. LOTS of stuff would need to get cut out. Characterizations of the dwarves go out the window. Favorite adventures and subplots are excised in the race for the finish. Trust the supporters, two movies is a MUCH better way to do this.