this is hardly padding the franchise. It's not like Michael Bay farted out some CGI and they put in a story later. This is an essential component of the Tolkien universe, and I'll fight anyone if they say its just padding.

Oh, releasing Star Wars 3d is a perfect fucking example of padding. This... no.

It took me a while to spoof the Meet the Feebles theme, you know. You could have at least written a really long response as to why you think this movie wont be boring.

So how long will this sucker be, you think? Three hours? Three and a half? About what percentage would you estimate will be actual watchable movie? 60%? 65%? Now way will it hit 70%.

It's always nice when a poster on POETV makes a live example of Poe's Law.

up next, memedumpster criticizes Shakespeare's decision to split "Henry IV" into two parts as a cynical cash-grab

Fuck you, memedumpster. This movie has Doctor Who in it.

But five stars for the Feebles song, because that was pretty good.

Awww, dammit. I just double-checked on IMDB, and it looks like Doctor Who isn't in it, after all. My nerd-boner is now only semi-erect and twitching.

I still think you're wrong, though. The book wasn't that great compared to the Trilogy Proper, but it's not like he's releasing a thirty-hour adaption of the Silmarillion. If you can't get even a little excited for this, then I'm sorry, but you have no soul.

Dang, EvilHomer, you gave me joy and took it away!

I actually look forward to seeing this movie, I wanted this over the LOTR trilogy from the get go. I find this to be a superior story, less epic, less contrived, and more personal.

People, are you aware that this film is being produced FOR PROFIT? INTENTIONALLY?

Memedumpster is trying to warn you!

I tried reading Tolkien once and I thought it was a bunch of horseshit, so I'm reserving my negative vote as obviously I won't like any film based on his books, regardless of the quality of said film.
However, I must say I agree with memedumpster, I had to watch one of the LOTR films and it just went on and on and on. There was a semi-decent fantasy story in there, but it was padded out into boring shit. Whether that is Peter Jackson's or Tolkien's fault, I have no idea.

There needs to be a footnote to Poe's Law for situations where the cat is let out of the bag but people fall for it anyway.

Adham, I couldn't disagree more. I saw all the LotR films, including the super ultra mega extended versions, and if anything they were too short. LotR could have filled a three season miniseries, easily; I mean, who cuts out every appearance of Tom Bombadill? Or skips the Barrow Downs completely?

Granted, I play Minecraft and vote Ron Paul, so maybe I'm not the best judge of things. But all I'm saying is, if Game of Thrones can do it, so can LotR.

Homer, there is a fundamental difference. I have a natural aversion to medieval fantasy stuff and I haven't watched A Game of Thrones, yet despite this, every single clip of it I've seen posted on this site and that I've watched on youtube has been absolutely brilliantly written and is often hilarious. LOTR, on the other hand, is standard fantasy stuff.

No one who read the books had much of an idea what was going on in the movies other then "Elijah Wood has to toss a ring into a volcano." What is this wooden log city? Who's this old king? What's the marble city? Who are the horse guys and the robin hood guys?

Then the utterly invincible fellowship sucked all tension out. The only decent part in the entire trilogy was that Minas battle where the fellowship wasn't around to ruin it...up until they did with the utterly invincible ghost army.

Every change Jackson made seems to have been for the worse.

LOTR is standard fantasy stuff because Tolkein invented the fucking genre. George R. R. Martin is an even more morbidly obese neckbeard living off Social Security eating McNuggets in his mom's basement without it. Having said that, the movies were a bit of a letdown. Too much romance bullshit that wasn't in the book, not enough whimsy. I think '80s Tim Burton would have been a better director for it.

It's being split into two films, so the climatic battle won't be in this one. That's also why we got no footage of Smaug the Dragon.

I would totally watch a movie that's all about Dwarves getting shitfaced in a bar and singing. You shall have my six dollars, Mr. Jackson (though I'm still a little sad that del Toro didn't get to direct this.)

TWO FILMS!?

Okay, now he's just padding the franchise.

I don't like Del Toro and don't think he was a good pick for The Hobbit at all. Jackson has some real shitty movies under his belt but he's still better than edgy super srs Tim Burton.

Please. Comaring Burton to Del Toro is like comparing a goth kid drawing skeletons on Deviantart to Edward Gorey. Burton's dubious talent begins and ends with mildly unique art direction. Del Toro is all about finding an emotional core to a story and then using it to create impossible but amazingly detailed settings that harken back to that core.

Maybe The Hobbit wouldn't have been the right vehicle for him because he doesn't do as well when he's adapting other people's stories (ie, the first Hellboy movie) but I'd still love to see what he would have done.

I like how Blade II did slow-mo wrestling moves on vampyres in Blade II. They need to have a Blade II/Pan's Labyrinth crossover so Blade II can do wrestling moves on nazis.

Burton's just lucky he has some sort of unholy hold on John Depp. He could just dress him unusually and film him quirkily farting on a snare drum and Hot Topic will still make a messenger bag out of it.

I'm excited for this because Robin Williams is the voice of Smaug, the street-smart rap dragon with attitude. He's edgy, he's "in your face." You've heard the expression "let's get busy"? Well, this is a dragon who gets "biz-zay!" Consistently and thoroughly.

Liar! Benedict Timothy Carlton Cumberbatch is the voice of Smaug.

Del Toro is the kid that liked taking the Rob Liefeld approach. Why are there so many pockets on his pants? That's not important. What's important is it looks rad!

Oh man oh man oh man.

Not sure how many of you know or don't know, but it's going to be two movies. Part Two will undoubtedly cover Lonely Mountain etc. It's two movies because Jackson is working in elements of Tolkien's appendices and backstory to LOTR as part of the film. That'll be weird since Hobbit is such a radically different book from LOTR (meant for kids and not nearly as dark and laden with lore and complexity) but I trust Jackson and crew.

I am now far less enthused about this movie.

In some respects The Hobbit is more complex than LotR. The aftermath/fallout over Smaug dying and what happens to the treasure is far more morally ambiguous/interesting than anything in LotR.

True. Well, judging from just this trailer and the amount of Gandalf in it (and the appearance of Galadriel, who isn't even in The Hobbit), I'm guessing that a good chunk of this first movie will cover Gandalf travelling to Mirkwood and discovering the Necromancer, then attempting to convince the White Council that the Necromancer is probably Sauron. I can't see any other reason to put Christopher Lee in the film, unless this is the route their going.

OK, that's classy. It partly makes up for the lack of David Tennant.

Office guy is way better than Tennant, at least for Bilbo.

I'd heard Tennant was going to be an elf, or possibly one of the less goofy dwarf companions. I'd never be able to take him seriously as Bilbo, although Matt Smith might have worked.

Sylvester McCoy, the Eighth Doctor, will be playing Radagast the Brown, so that's something.

I'm not sure what they'll do with him since he literally has no role in the books (except to get briefly mentioned), but oh well.