Calm down? When I lose my cool, I will do just that.

Seen it yesterday with a friend who happens to be a huge LotR fan and the both of us enjoyed it immensely.

Don't see the problem with "all the walking around and talking", as the whole series is more about character building than non-stop action, and I found the pacing of the movie to be overall great. I didn't feel the time pass and found myself wishing that I wouldn't have to wait until march (as far as I remember) until I get to see the next part.

Another big plus in my book was the fact that this was one of the few movies where they didn't go overboard with the 3D effects (seen it in IMAX 3D) and everything fit in place and the image, scenery and overall cinematography was great.

Overall this is, at least for me, one of the best, if not the best movie of 2012.

Going to see it with her and some other friends again next week, so this says something about the movie considering that I'm not a Tolkien geek and rarely watch stuff more than once unless it really makes an impression on me.

Upon a bit more thinking about The Hobbit and the LotR movies, I expected the tone to be different, but that's a good thing IMO. The story of The Hobbit is (obviously) more adventure than epic, and it's good that the film (apparently) reflects that.

The Riddle scene was fucking perfect!

My opinion: Disclaimer I am a fan of both the books and the movies and i saw this one in normal 3D.

I loved it and i thought it was going to be boring and too long since the stories doesn't lend itself for 3 movies (i could have understood 2) BUT Peter Jackson did a great job. I don't think there is a lot of guillermo del toro in there anymore. It's a love letter for those who love the movie character of the lord of the rings.

The actor who plays bilbo is really good, and the scene with gollum is probably the best in the movie.

Only semi complain: way too much cgi but I guess they can get away with it since they approached the movie (just like the book) as a children's movie that can be hugely enjoyeable for adults too. It's humor is more aimed at children and in contrary to LoTR where PJ tried to make everything as real as possible, this has a way more fantasy and colorful look to it.

If you know what you are getting into (a fun, colorful, children's movie, without a complex story) you will probably enjoy this a lot. My GF enjoyed every second of it and she thinks the LoTR movies are too boring.

Going to ROT13 this because it's spoilery, but I have to agree, that scene was absolutely beautiful.

I was really worried about that part, because I didn't see how they could make it make any sense at all within the context of the movie. When they made it clear that Ovyob jnf gelvat gb pnyz qbja/znavchyngr n pyrneyl vafnar Tbyyhz it all worked. Whereas in the book, they settle down to have a riddle contest like that's just what two normal people do.

Ah, you should've said you were an idiot, then I wouldn't have wasted my time on you.

This comes out in Australia on the 26th, I think, but I am looking forward to it so much.

I'm glad that it doesn't sound like they dramatised it to a stupid extent. The Hobbit is a pretty gently-paced book, and I would want the movie to have turned into a total seat-of-your-pants affair. Also, Martin Freeman is basically the perfect hobbit.

Preface: I'm a huge, huge Tolkien nerd. I enjoy the LOTR movies, they are quite good - as movies specifically - and pretty decent - as LOTR movies.

The Hobbit was completely horrible, and I will not be watching the two following movies.

So, if you haven't seen it yet, you shouldn't read on if you don't want SPOILERS:

Big thing about dates that I mention: the movie is wrong (I think I remember it saying that the sack of Erebor - the Lonely Mountain - is 60 prior to the start, but I could be just remembering the 60 years prior from the flashback thing at the very beginning of the movie). Erebor is attacked and sacked by Smaug in 2770. The Goblin War is 20 years after that. And then there is another 150 years before the start of the story of The Hobbit.

As darthspudius mentioned earlier there are a bunch of things added into the movie that are not directly in The Hobbit as a book. Now, while some (key word: some!) of it is relatively grounded in actual lore, a large amount of it is actually completely made up.
The best example of this is the Azog ("The White Orc") subplot for Thorin. The battle that is shown in the movie which occurred at the gates of Moria: that happened, true, about 150 years before the Hobbit takes place. That is correct. And the orc chieftain there was named Azog. And he did behead Thror (though it isn't in battle: Thror goes to Moria with one companion, Thror enters Moria by himself to scout it out and is captured, killed, and beheaded by Azog - this is what sparks the Goblin Wars). Thorin does fight in the battle (sort of) as depicted, and he does lose his shield and use an oak branch as a shield - hence Oakenshield as his honorific. He does not actually fight Azog though: Dain II, who is Thorin's cousin I think, (who shows up at the end of The Hobbit in the Battle of Five Armies leading the dwarves from the Iron Hills, he then becomes King Under the Mountain after Thorin is killed) fights and kills Azog.

So there is a pretty big difference. I understand why they did that though - so they didn't have to try and explain that back story and then introduce another orc chieftain (Bolg - Azog's son) who shows up at The Battle of Five Armies as the huge antagonist. Having Azog chase the company around though is ridiculous and stupid. And just an excuse to have more pointless fight scenes in the movie (and to help stretch the time out).

Another example: Dol Guldur, the ruined castle in Mirkwood. So, Gandalf already knows by the time that The Hobbit takes place, that the "Necromancer" there is Sauron. Gandalf knows this because years previously (between 2841 and 2850, which is about 90 years before the Hobbit takes place) he ventured into the dungeons of Dol Guldur and found Thrain, the father of Thorin, who had sort of gone crazy after the death of his father and the end of the Goblin Wars. Thrain was crazy enough, and had been tortured enough that he didn't actually know who he was, but he trusted Gandalf enough to give him the key and the map to the side door of Erebor (which Gandalf has in the movie and gives to Thorin).

In escaping from Dol Guldur he basically figures out that Sauron's spirit (not yet re-embodied, though the Witch King (Lord of the Nazgul) may be fully bodied at this point - it is unclear) is living there and that is why bad things are going on. He knows about all this long before Radagast tells anyone (and Radagast's portrayal is also a bit ridiculous in the movie), and while the White Council (Saruman, Galadriel, Elrond, Gandalf, possibly Radagast) knows what is going on before hand they don't make any move because, on the counseling of Saruman, they are being cautious, and don't think that Sauron can regain his strength.
The movie shortens this whole timeline - has Gandalf look super uninformed about things - and also makes him look really weak in the Council. All things that are problematic, at best. Also, the placement of the Council meeting in Rivendell (let's put aside the teleporting Galadriel thing for the moment as well!) is probably wrong - and it certainly didn't occur at this time. Gandalf attends a council with them when he leaves the dwarves and Bilbo after resting at Beorn's house. This grouping of them go to Dol Guldur and drive Sauron and the Witch King out and they flee to Mordor (Sauron basically tricks them though and they think he is weaker than he really was at this point - meaning he probably had regained his body, and most of his power: without the Ring obviously).

Besides lore things that I can continue to critique all day though the movie itself has horrible schizophrenia: it doesn't know if it wants to be dark and deep and brooding with lots of fighting and sadness and death - or if it wants to be comical and light hearted and silly even when bad things are happening.
Examples: The whole Azog pursuing the dwarves from the moment they leave Bag End is super dark and dramatic -and allows for chase scenes and fighting galore. But at the same time the battles themselves are super unrealistic and silly looking. A friend who I saw the movie with last night commented that the fights "look like a video game" (she is not a gamer). And I agree, in all the negative ways that game fights can look.
The Goblin King is supposed to be scary - but at the same time is a farcical character. Particularly in the way he dies (saying "That'll do it." when Gandalf slashes his (huge) belly), and then in another moment of physical comedy his body falls on top of all the dwarves - for laughs.
But then the overly dramatic fight between Azog and Thorin on the cliff's edge, and then Bilbo jumping in, and then Thorin being seemingly "dead" is so dramatic and over the top in the opposite direction that the movie is pulled in two.

As a final criticism I would like to point out that Peter Jackson still has no understanding of what a metaphor is:
I do concede that the literal way that The Hobbit is written there are "stone giants" who are throwing rocks at each other for sport in the mountain pass. However, I see this whole little diversion thing (even including the dwarves making a comment about not wanting to be made a "football" of the giants) is a story telling technique, and ultimately metaphor for a great big old thunder storm (a "thunder battle").
This is similar to how Jackson doesn't understand what subtlety is when reading LOTR, regarding the "wings" of Balrogs. Balrogs. do. not. have. wings. The specific line in FOTR is referring to a great shadow (which the Balrog is made of an, and can create) which is "like wings" and looks like wings.

Just watched it. Very decent flick. I think it captures the Tolkien vibe even better than the LOTR movies. But I had the feeling you needed a lot of lore knowledge to follow all the hints.

Personally, my biggest gripe is that it had too much action and not enough talking. Also, here the dwarfes were at least somewhat distinct, unlike the book.

I want to see it but may wait a short while before I do. Plus, I'm not sure whether to first see it in standard projection then in 48 fps, or see it in 48 fps first.

why the hell are they making it a trilogy, the book is half the size of any lotr books
if he really wanted to include more lore he could have tried fighting for the rights to the similarion or even children of hurin (that was a dark book)

I watched the Movie in plain, old 2D, because I hate this 3D crap, It doesn´t work for me, the movies look way too dark with those stupid glasses and I don´t like having those glasses on my nose at all. And I know a lot of people who think the same, and for most of them the 3D works just fine. Also I don´t like to pay more.

For the movie itself: I liked it, but I never read the book. I would say that it is somewhat similar to the first LOTR movie in its pacing, talking and walking in the first half and more action in the second. The talking is nice and I was not bored by it. However, I don´t like everything about how the movie looks. A lot of the CGI stuff looks out of place and sometimes cheap,

SPOILER

especially when they crash down with that wooden plattform near the end or the very last scene where the camera goes through the dwarf city and the dragon wakes up. Those two scenes looked very cheap. Other stuff like the fightinh Stone Giants looked way better than those scenes.

SPOILER END

In general, the CGI in the LOTR movies wasn´t that obvious like it is in the Hobbit. For me that alone destroyed the feeling sometimes.

Too long. Too slow. Took quite a bit of materials from the Lord of the Rings (i.e., the appendices) and put it into the Hobbit movie; those materials actually belong in the Lord of the Rings, NOT the Hobbit.

Also, the Hobbit movie makes the assumption that the audiences are familiar with the Lord of the Rings movie. For example: when Bilbo puts on the ring for the first time, the movie does NOT show Bilbo become invisible. It just shows his POV in the wraith world. The movie never actually shows that he becomes invisible. So people who have not seen the Lord of the Rings movie may not realize the ring makes its wearer invisible.

The movie is surprisingly faithful to the book, (as far as an adaptation goes.). More so than the Lord of the Rings movies. Which turns out NOT to be a good thing when adapting a book into a movie. (I read the Hobbit back in grade school.)

I loved it best blockbuster movie I have seen this year. it even beats Avengers imo.

The whole was like a interesting mix between child-like fairy tale and mature themes mixed well together, It reminded me of the first 2 Harry Potter movies which I loved the most.

AND THE 48 FRAMES PER SECOND AND 3D DID NOT BOTHER ME ONE BIT, COME AT ME YOU VISUAL ELITISTS ;)

What, this is going to be a trilogy. Not sure on that to be honest. The whole book of The Hobbit is ... about a third to a half of that of a single book from the LOTR trilogy, and on top of that it's meant to be more of a children's story. It lacks the big world view and the complexity of the LOTR story.

I loved the movie, with the possible exception of the stone giants part, but I'm concerned that dividing this story in three rather than two will really feel too drawn out. Like, uh, butter spread over too much bread.