Year, not years. And I'm pretty sure the third one is being released in July of 2014.

Meh

_________________
Legal Notice: Only a very small percentage of the things I do and say can be taken seriously. If ever.

Incidentally that's what my wife thought about the original LOTR, when she found out it was a three-book series. We saw the first one, and then the preview for the second, coming out the next year. She about flipped pure wiggy.

"Well, that ended weird."

"Of course it did," I said. "That's the end of the first book."

"The FIRST book?"

"Well, yea. The next one will come out next year, and the final one the year after that."

"Wha-wha-what? I have to wait a gorram year for the next movie?"

No, she was not pleased at all. She's equally displeased there are three movies she'll have to wait for with The Hobbit, but we're going to see it anyway.

_________________
World Champion Seattle Seahawks football. It's an addiction, and there is no cure.

I liked it a lot. It's not on the same grand scale as the first trilogy but it kept me very entertained for the ~ 3 hours. Visually it blows most movies out of the water. I haven't read the book in awhile so I can't say what places dragged out too long but I think it does start out slow and they might have added too much fluff. It does have a more realistic battle sense though, aside from the goblins which was pretty epic. I'm curious as to how they plan on making it a trilogy....seems like the second will pick right up and 3 hours is plenty of time to get to the end of the story. Maybe he will use the third to connect big players from the Hobbit into The Fellowship?

If anyone knows more I'd be very interested.

oh the humor...
the makeup...

the cgi...

not even in the vicinity of LOTR:fellowship in execution and pace.

we now have no desire to see the next two, sorry middle earth.

Well, saw it this afternoon, and was overall impressed. I'd say about an 8.5/10 for me. Storyline and tie-ins to LOTR and related material was 10/10 outstanding. Characters and dialog were about a 7/10 for the over-the-top slapstick and too-modern dialog.

I thought it held up overall pretty well to the LOTR series, and will finish on equal footing with it. The nice thing about it is that it appears so far to be a pair of series which one can watch one or the other first and get pretty much the same bang for the buck. It's set up well as a sequel series to the LOTR, but also works well as a prequel. Nicely done there.

The schtick was a bit heavy at times. Snappy comeback dialog, over-the-top slapstick, and defying the laws of science, physics and gravity at times certainly detracted, but they did as well at points in the LOTR. I'll live with that to get an excellent story told exceptionally well pretty much any day of the year.

_________________
World Champion Seattle Seahawks football. It's an addiction, and there is no cure.

I thought it was good but I personally liked both Django and Reacher more.

_________________

Was it as boring as reading The Hobbit?

_________________
Sam Bradford is a game changer.

*He can change a win into a loss.
*He can change a loss into a win by getting injured.
*RedAlice is right.

No.

_________________

I thought it was outstanding, and far better than the book. For Lord of the Rings, I think Jackson took an A+ book and made it into three solid B movies. For Hobbit (part I at least) I think he took a B- book and made it into a solid A movie. Loved the changes to the Dwarves' motivations, attitudes, etc. They made the quest seem so much less casual and small-minded.

Also Gandalf kicking ass... yes...

I think they took Radagast just a little too far in terms of weird and quirky, but I still loved him. Sleigh pulled by rabbits? Yup.

Sign me up for two more of these. My expectations were very low. I think the book is just not good because of its tone and weird pacing and Jackson made it into a good movie.

_________________
We want the ball and we're gonna score.

Finally got a chance to see this. Some disconnected thoughts.

I liked the way Peter Jackson is tying the Hobbit into the larger world of Lord of the Rings, but I can see how that would be a major turn off for others.

After the pretty good set up with Erebor, Smaug, and the dwarf kingdom, the movie then takes far too long to launch into the Hobbit. Overall, the pacing of the first half needed work. (Some of sub plots might pay off in later movies, such as the scenes with Radagast...I hope.)

The second half was very enjoyable, and the scene with Gollum and Bilbo was sublime. Very tense.

Movie varied wildly between comical and 'kid-like' (since the Hobbit is, essentially, a child's book) and Lord of the Rings epic minded. It worked at times and not at others. (I'm torn on the goblin-king death, for instance.) Though it needed more consistency, there.

Really liked Martin Freeman as Bilbo. He does the bewildered Englishman thing as his main schtick, but he does it damn well, and he grew as a character throughout the movie.

Overall, I liked it, and would give it about a 7/10.

Oh, and Gandalf looked really old and tired in this one. Would've expected a more spry Mithrandir.

Agree with peaches about a Hurin epic.

_________________
Super Bowl Champions XVLIII

It was slow at times and silly at times and I hope they are able to pull off the "prequel trilogy" (both how it ties in with LOTR and making a relatively short story into 3 long movies) aspect but overall I really enjoyed it, as I did the book. Seen it twice already, probably will a third time just to be thorough, and can't wait for the next one!

_________________
Tanzania¹²

Hahahahahaaa!

The book had way more CGI when I read it. Come on Jackson!

I saw it last night (3d version) and felt it was pretty good. The pace was a little faster than LoTR, but overall I felt it was a solid film. Nothing spectacular, but pretty good in general. I'll be looking forward to the next.

_________________
Feel free to contact me if you need legal assistance. I have a great lawyer that helped me with an ex who violated my privacy and kept harassing me on MySpace and Facebook. He's very good. And there is legal precedent. - linuxpro

He is hold back the legion of boom - skater18000

Yeah, i think all of the comments here are valid. The pacing was a little uneven, but overall it was very good. freeman is remarkably good as Bilbo, just as he was when he played Arthur Dent. I thought there was a fairly decent mix of light-hearted moments and serious moments. Not sure if I dig the Thorin character or not. Will just have to see the rest of the movies. I think the darker tone than the book is definitely working, and I appreciate all of the meta-references (like Gandalf saying he can't remember the blue Wizards' names, lolz).

_________________
Rzzzzz...