[MattKeil]

The final thirty minutes should have been 5 minutes.

This is like holding a sign up declaring you don't understand how stories work. After three years and nearly 10 hours of runtime, that ending had fucking well better be 30 minutes long.

Fellowship remains my favorite of the three, but RotK is probably the overall best of the three. I just still harbor a fondness for Fellowship because of how greatly it surprised me with how good it was. By RotK I expected greatness and, of course, got it.

[relaxor]

Fellowship's theatrical cut has far better pacing and is frankly the better version of the film IMO. The EE also ruined this beautiful part in the original cut when Galadriel is giving them the gifts as they change part of the Howard Shore score to something not as good. The Two Towers is the one that benefit the most from the EE. I liked every single addition and it just made the movie a bit better to me. ROTK's EE is a mixed bag. It adds some amazing things, but then stuff like Saruman's death is just god awful and should have never been included.

Yes, agreed. TT EE is my favorite film of the trilogy when all is said and done.

I like Gandalf's speech about death to Pippin in this film, though I do sadly think it's the worst of the three. Too much third-movie-in-a-trilogy bloat.

[Lancehead]

This quote can have a sort of ambiguous interpretation. It doesn't necessarily say that Aragorn could wield the ring rather that Sauron could be fooled that a man who would stand up to him would have strength enough to wield it. So long as he doesn't know, that is enough to set the trap.

I do think Gandalf is clear about "some among us" being able to wield the Ring. And that is why they might fool Sauron about the strength of the host of Gondor, because as far as Sauron knows the Ring is probably in possession of the lords of Gondor. The ambiguity might come with the phrase "some among us". By "us", did Gandalf mean the good people of Middle-Earth or the ones present at that particular meeting. If it's the former, then Aragorn may not be among the "some", but would've included Elrond, Cirdan and Galadriel.

Indeed. But I do wonder what he would have become with the One and what Sauron would have done. He would still be alive even if he lost yet another physical raiment. Would he be in the shadows influencing Aragon like he once did with Ar-Pharazon or would he be busy trying to rebuild his army. There‘s also the question of the Valar. What would they have done? Send yet another Maia to aid the remaining races of Middle-earth or just intervene themselves and send their army.

Mastering the power of the Ring would take time, so if in that time Sauron fails to assail the new ringlord and take back the Ring, then Sauron would be overthrown. He would not then be able to influence anyone because he transferred a major part of his power into the Ring. He would simply be a spirit beyond the Walls of the Night, with no strength to take form again.

The Valar would probably not interfere much with the affairs of the Middle-Earth. If I remember correctly, when Sauron came back as the shadow over Greenwood, the Valar sent the Wizards to help. So they might do something like that again. They themselves would not interfere unless it is to deal with another Vala, and even that might require something like what Earendil did.

[Jimothy]

Am I weird for thinking this is the best piece of music ever written by a human?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8oqZ7SJN_8

[Theonik]

I do think Gandalf is clear about "some among us" being able to wield the Ring. And that is why they might fool Sauron about the strength of the host of Gondor, because as far as Sauron knows the Ring is probably in possession of the lords of Gondor. The ambiguity might come with the phrase "some among us". By "us", did Gandalf mean the good people of Middle-Earth or the ones present at that particular meeting. If it's the former, then Aragorn may not be among the "some", but would've included Elrond, Cirdan and Galadriel.

I would probably lean on the former, as they are the only people who have been hinted as being able to wield the ring. Speaking of this one of the things Tolkien never explained in the books which sort of bothered me was Tom Bombandil. A seemingly insignificant character, in the grand scheme of the plot of LoTR but implied in several points to be a character with quite a lot of power, possibly enough to dominate his will over the ring based on the brif scene where he wore it but was not affected by its power.

[Kung Fu Jedi]

I would probably lean on the former, as they are the only people who have been hinted as being able to wield the ring. Speaking of this one of the things Tolkien never explained in the books which sort of bothered me was Tom Bombandil. A seemingly insignificant character, in the grand scheme of the plot of LoTR but implied in several points to be a character with quite a lot of power, possibly enough to dominate his will over the ring based on the brif scene where he wore it but was not affected by its power.

Tolkien hints pretty heavily about who and what Tom is. He says that he has always been in Middle Earth, before any of the other living creatures and the indications are that he is a/the spirit of nature.

The Ring holds no sway over Bombadil, that much is clear, but it is actually very unclear if he could do anything to control it. It is simply something that is beyond his care, which is why he couldn't be entrusted with it. To him it was a trifling of little value.

I have some real issues with some of the changes to the story that Peter Jackson made, but I have no issues with him leaving Tom out of the films.

[Theonik]

Tolkien hints pretty heavily about who and what Tom is. He says that he has always been in Middle Earth, before any of the other living creatures and the indications are that he is a/the spirit of nature. The Ring holds no sway over Bombadil, that much is clear, but it is actually very unclear if he could do anything to control it. It is simply something that is beyond his care, which is why he couldn't be entrusted with it. To him it was a trifling of little value. I have some real issues with some of the changes to the story that Peter Jackson made, but I have no issues with him leaving Tom out of the films.

Yeah he does imply things like that but he never explicitly explains it and in combination to the ring mystery it feels kinda iffy. Mind you neither question is really important in the overall plot since he also made sure to explain that he wouldn't care enough to help them by using the ring or to hide it even if he could so the answer to that query would be irrelevant in that context. It's just quite a major possibility to throw out and never touch again.

As for it not being included in the films I agree, the encounter with him is really not that important, and would probably be too confusing to viewers especially if it meant that they'd have to cut quite a bit from it to even fit it in. Though I would have liked if they kept the scene with the barrow-wights.

[Melchiah]

The final thirty minutes should have been 5 minutes.

Probably the movies only flaw as far as I’m concerned....

That, and the ghost army.

[Loxley]

While personally I feel the way that the Pelennor fields/Dead Army stuff plays out in the books is actually more gripping than how it is in the films, RotK is still a goddamn masterpiece as far as fantasy films go. I have to say I've never completely understood the complaint that the dead army coming in and cleaning house at Minus Tirith ruined the entire movie for some people.

I've also decided that I'm done telling people who thought the movie "had too many endings" or "the ending was too long" to stick a fork in a toaster. I'm just tired of hearing it. I would think that anyone who gave a genuine shit about what they were watching would want to know how things ended and would want to see all the loose ends tied up.

[Solo]

It had been years since I last saw it...and yep, it’s still the greatest movie of all time.

Stopped reading here and burst out laughing. A movie that isn't even the best in its own series cannot claim such things.

[Edmond Dantès]

Tolkien hints pretty heavily about who and what Tom is. He says that he has always been in Middle Earth, before any of the other living creatures and the indications are that he is a/the spirit of nature. The Ring holds no sway over Bombadil, that much is clear, but it is actually very unclear if he could do anything to control it. It is simply something that is beyond his care, which is why he couldn't be entrusted with it. To him it was a trifling of little value. I have some real issues with some of the changes to the story that Peter Jackson made, but I have no issues with him leaving Tom out of the films.

Yeah he does imply things like that but he never explicitly explains it and in combination to the ring mystery it feels kinda iffy. Mind you neither question is really important in the overall plot since he also made sure to explain that he wouldn't care enough to help them by using the ring or to hide it even if he could so the answer to that query would be irrelevant in that context. It's just quite a major possibility to throw out and never touch again. As for it not being included in the films I agree, the encounter with him is really not that important, and would probably be too confusing to viewers especially if it meant that they'd have to cut quite a bit from it to even fit it in. Though I would have liked if they kept the scene with the barrow-wights.

Quoting this explanation from a recent Tolkien thread.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost...&postcount=305

Tolkien sucks at spelling! lololol! *ahem* ( I <3 Mr J. R. R. ) Since I'm trolling up the place, I'll make good with a question: what do I need to read in order to learn more about that most enigmatic and fruity of passing deity-like figures known as Tom of Bombadil? Or is anyone willing to drop some free Forestfolk-lore on me? Tolkien had the following to say about Tom from The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien: As a story, I think it is good that there should be a lot of things unexplained (especially if an explanation actually exists); ... And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally). The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom against compulsion that has long lost any object save mere power, and so on; but both sides in some degree, conservative or destructive, want a measure of control. But if you have, as it were taken 'a vow of poverty', renounced control, and take delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing, then the question of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless. Tom represented Botany and Zoology (as sciences) and Poetry as opposed to Cattle-breeding and Agriculture and practicality. The general consensus among Tolkien scholars is that Tom was an Ainu without rank, neither Vala or Maia, but a free spirit who descended into Arda and took abode in Middle-Earth after it was first created. He took no real notice of Melkor's war with the Elves or Sauron's war with the Children of Iluvatar. A care free spirit. Some have suggested that he is a physical embodiment of Eru himself, but I don't buy into that theory.

[brandonh83]

Stopped reading here and had and burst out laughing. A movie that isn't even the best in its own series cannot claim such things.

I think Fellowship gives it a run for its money but it's not that much of a stretch. Return of the King is phenomenal. Not sure why you're so matter of factly about everything. :p

[BocoDragon]

I didn't like this movie... It's associated with the moment I finally realized I didn't like Lord of the Rings.

But that's just me... More power to those who like it.

[Escape Goat]

I hate how the Fellowship got paired off in the movies. Pippin plays off Merry and vice versa. Gandalf counsels Aragorn and keeps him on the path. Everyone gets split up and then paired up with a new character. And it just falls flat for me. I didn't care about Pippin's oath to Gondor or Merry's struggle with Shield Maiden lady to find their place in battle. I guess I have to give it credit for not playing to my expectations but it felt like the movie missed out on a lot of good scenes as a result.

[TheDanger]

The ultra peadoesque final scenes really fucked up the series. You see Ganon in a different light after that!

What the fuck does that mean ?

[An-Det]

I can understand why some might not love it, but I find it a truly fantastic film. After marathoning the EE versions of the trilogy, watching the coronation and "You bow to no one" there is no way to not tear up. The film needed the half hour cascading ending, both because there is still stuff to wrap up and because doing a short one just doesnt do justice to it all, you've got to let it all out and decompress.

[Ape Gone Insane]

Sean Bean was incredible as Boromir. "...my brother, my captain, my king....." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBSLBl-64fk Manly tears indeed.

This from the first film, Sam's speech from the second film and 'You bow to no one' from the third film - really struck an emotional chord. Especially the last one.

[Kung Fu Jedi]

While personally I feel the way that the Pelennor fields/Dead Army stuff plays out in the books is actually more gripping than how it is in the films, RotK is still a goddamn masterpiece as far as fantasy films go. I have to say I've never completely understood the complaint that the dead army coming in and cleaning house at Minus Tirith ruined the entire movie for some people. I've also decided that I'm done telling people who thought the movie "had too many endings" or "the ending was too long" to stick a fork in a toaster. I'm just tired of hearing it. I would think that anyone who gave a genuine shit about what they were watching would want to know how things ended and would want to see all the loose ends tied up.

Considering the Army of the Dead wasn't even at the Battle of The Pelennor Fields in the book, it does alter things fairly dramatically. While it hardly ruins the whole movie for me, I didn't care for the scene either. The Dead are an unstoppable force and yet Aragorn releases them from their pact after one potentially minor battle. If I were King and had a force like the one shown in the movie, I wouldn't have released them from the vow until after we had ridden to the Black Gate and taken on Suaron's Army directly.

[oatmeal]

Alright, fuck it...

Wife and I are going to watch Fellowship EE today.

[Shanks]

So as someone to watch the series, is it recommended to watch the EE of each or the regular cut? People keep complaining about the length so I'm curious before I start.

[Kung Fu Jedi]

Alright, fuck it... Wife and I are going to watch Fellowship EE today.

I'm trying to resist, partly because it's already after 8PM here and the extended cut adds time, but I've been tempted all day as well. :)

So as someone to watch the series, is it recommended to watch the EE of each or the regular cut? People keep complaining about the length so I'm curious before I start.

As a big fan of the books and the films, I feel like the EE is the only way to watch 'em.

[Bo]

Then it would have completely ignored much of the theme of the story they were telling about leaving home for war and having to come back afterward. Nope. RotK ending was pitch perfect.

I agree with this. Ending at the coronation discards a huge amount of the film's closure and cathartic release, and all just to satisfy some squirminess about the movie not wrapping up everything with a bow in ten minutes. A tale this long in the telling warrants a hell of a lot more. That's what it got.

[Ape Gone Insane]

So as someone to watch the series, is it recommended to watch the EE of each or the regular cut? People keep complaining about the length so I'm curious before I start.

If you really have a problem with overly lengthy films then go with theatrical. But otherwise, watch Extended Editions. They are worth it.

[Edmond Dantès]

I agree with this. Ending at the coronation discards a huge amount of the film's closure and cathartic release, and all just to satisfy some squirminess about the movie not wrapping up everything with a bow in ten minutes. A tale this long in the telling warrants a hell of a lot more. That's what it got.

Indeed.

Can only imagine how long a potential ending to the eventual Silmarillion adaptation in 30 or 40 decades time would be.

[Tricky I Shadow]

Am I weird for thinking this is the best piece of music ever written by a human? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8oqZ7SJN_8

<3 <3 <3

[Bo]

Indeed. Can only imagine how long a potential ending to the eventual Silmarillion adaptation in 30 or 40 decades time would be.

Eugh, you would not believe how much I want a trilogy of three hour twenty minute movies. And I've thoughts on how it might be done coherently, too.

Viewers are already familiar with Galadriel on the narration front, and her status and presence throughout much of these histories would make it more or less a perfect fit (and for his own role played in it, I'd love to have Olorin/Gandalf narrating the histories of Men).

As for the things narrated, it'd be an interesting challenge to strike a balance between the four main "books" that comprise it: Ainulindale & Valaquenta, Quenta Silmarillion, and Akallabeth. For the sake of focus, I think it might be a necessary evil to excise the last entirely (perhaps save it for its own "bridge" movie between this and LoTR), and cut down the first two into highly symbolic and visual scenes, much akin to the bits of history each of the Lord of the Rings films opened with. Peel back the foundation of the universe and Middle Earth in the prologue spaces of all three films, before opening on the tales of the Elves and later Men.

Film one could be bookended by the parallels of the darkened lamps and the darkened trees, the exploits of Feanor and Melkor, and ultimately ending with the kinslayings and Feanor's abandonment of Fingolfin on the shores of Valinor.

Film two could pick up from the crossings of the ice, the burning of the ships, the first battles of the Noldor and the rising of the sun. The following battles, politics, the long siege, Beren and Luthien, those could form the film's body. The end of the Battle of Sudden Flame could mark the endpoint, establishing the oppressive atmosphere of Beleriand being overrun and the great losses to come.

Film three could be centered around the Battle of Unnumbered Tears and its aftermath: the breaking of the strongholds, Hurin's imprisonment and wanderings, Turin Turambar's great deeds and death, and Earendil's gamble. By the end of the third film, everything comes full circle with the entrance of the Valar, the War of Wrath, and Melkor's expulsion through the doors of night.

[Edmond Dantès]

Eugh, you would not believe how much I want a trilogy of three hour twenty minute movies. And I've thoughts on how it might be done coherently, too. Viewers are already familiar with Galadriel on the narration front, and her status and presence throughout much of these histories would make it more or less a perfect fit (and for his own role played in it, I'd love to have Olorin/Gandalf narrating the histories of Men). As for the things narrated, it'd be an interesting challenge to strike a balance between the four main "books" that comprise it: Ainulindale & Valaquenta, Quenta Silmarillion, and Akallabeth. For the sake of focus, I think it might be a necessary evil to excise the last entirely (perhaps save it for its own "bridge" movie between this and LoTR), and cut down the first two into highly symbolic and visual scenes, much akin to the bits of history each of the Lord of the Rings films opened with. Peel back the foundation of the universe and Middle Earth in the prologue spaces of all three films, before opening on the tales of the Elves and later Men. Film one could be bookended by the parallels of the darkened lamps and the darkened trees, the exploits of Feanor and Melkor, and ultimately ending with the kinslayings and Feanor's abandonment of Fingolfin on the shores of Valinor. Film two could pick up from the crossings of the ice, the burning of the ships, the first battles of the Noldor and the rising of the sun. The following battles, politics, the long siege, Beren and Luthien, those could form the film's body. The end of the Battle of Sudden Flame could mark the endpoint, establishing the oppressive atmosphere of Beleriand being overrun and the great losses to come. Film three could be centered around the Battle of Unnumbered Tears and its aftermath: the breaking of the strongholds, Hurin's imprisonment and wanderings, Turin Turambar's great deeds and death, and Earendil's gamble. By the end of the third film, everything comes full circle with the entrance of the Valar, the War of Wrath, and Melkor's expulsion through the doors of night.

Good structure for a potential adaptation, but I'd personally go for a pentalogy. The Ainulindalë could really be done justice considering the period (decades from now when The Silmarillion comes into the public domain) in which it would eventually be adapted. The weaving of Arda and Melkor's three wars with the Aratar long before the Elves awoke in Cuiviénen would be a sight to behold. Then his eventual defeat due to Tulkas' intervention and his chaining. This would lead into the first spark of intelligent life on Middle-earth with the Elves awakening and establish the basis of the rest of the narrative.

Of Beren and Luthien would be a film in it's own right. It's the most fleshed out narrative in the Quenta behind the Hurin saga and would make for an excellent film. It could even be expanded upon by incorporating the Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth into the narrative which would be quite poignant considering Finrod's death in this story. The final film in the Quenta saga could focus on the Ruin of Doriath and the Fall of Gondolin and climax with the War of Wrath. Melkor's execution at the hands of Mandos while pleading for mercy before his spirit is banished into the void could provide for a chilling but far more personal death than say Sauron's in LOTR which many people feel quite detached from as you never really see/hear him when Barad-dûr falls.

This could then lead into Earendil and Elwing's story arc been completed, the Silmarils finally being put to rest and maybe even a glimpse of Sauron fleeing into the depths of Middle-earth to set up the next saga in the legendarium; The Fall of Numenor which would be a separate film.

But frankly, there's more chance of The Lord of the Rings been re-adapted than the Silmarillion happening, at least for now.

[NinjaBoiX]

Too much tedious exposition with characters talking with hushed, stern voices. It's seems like one of those movies where they wanted every line...to sound....so epic.....and filled with gravitas....so got everyone to speak.....really quietly....and with loads of.....pregnant pauses. I really dislike all of them. Some nice battles, and awesome scenery, but I find them dull, dull, dull.

[jaxword]

The ultra peadoesque final scenes really fucked up the series. You see Ganon in a different light after that!

[smurfx]

not gonna lie, sitting there in the theatre...I never wanted it to end :( so brilliant

i remember having to pee really bad and the ending kept on going and going.

[Edmond Dantès]

i remember having to pee really bad and the ending kept on going and going.

Jack Nicholson walked out after the coronation scene because he thought that was the end.

[Wallach]

I watched this again (for like the tenth time) a couple weeks ago too. Ending's basically old hat by now. Might as well be a rerun. *cough*

"My friends... you bow to no one."

[CassSept]

Not to be a dick..... but really!? You may have a point if cinema itself was invented in 1990 or something.

How come it isn't? Considering it's scope, ambition, care, years that were poured into it, name me another movie project that could measure up to it? I can think of War and Peace, but that's it. Regardless of whether you like it or not, I can't see how anyone could call it anything but monumental.

[Kilgore Trout]

RotK might be my least favorite of the trilogy, largely because the first half isn't paced very well, but during the second half there are so many goosebump-inducing moments. I see it as a highly ambitious and somewhat flawed movie that overcomes its shortcoming with the highs it reaches. And I still love it.

[mantidor]

Too much tedious exposition with characters talking with hushed, stern voices. It's seems like one of those movies where they wanted every line...to sound....so epic.....and filled with gravitas....so got everyone to speak.....really quietly....and with loads of.....pregnant pauses. I really dislike all of them. Some nice battles, and awesome scenery, but I find them dull, dull, dull.

This is my sentiment as well, but there was no other way to make the movie now that I think about it, the books are just from another time where expectations were different. Once I analyzed it I realize what I didn't like was how bad the bad guys are, the are just plain bad, so much that it almost becomes a joke, they are like the most evil and depraved of all evil and depraved creatures, no redeeming or interesting qualities whatsoever, Sauron and his minions are just this ultimate evil, it feels almost like self parody.

Compare Sauron to someone like Hannibal Lecter for instance, Sauron becomes dumb and not that interesting, they might as well had replace him for a natural disaster or something, he has the same personality, i.e. none at all. of course this was more in line with the common sentiment of the past century, when the bad guys were the bad guys and the good guys the good guys, no question about it. Also the same reason why back then war was seen as something honorable and glorious. In modern times that sentiment just doesn't ring true for a lot of people. I mean anyone likes a badass battle, but to emotionally engage in it you need more than just "evil wants to rule the land".

[joeyjoejoeshabadoo]

Total pedo.

[Edmond Dantès]

This is my sentiment as well, but there was no other way to make the movie now that I think about it, the books are just from another time where expectations were different. Once I analyzed it I realize what I didn't like was how bad the bad guys are, the are just plain bad, so much that it almost becomes a joke, they are like the most evil and depraved of all evil and depraved creatures, no redeeming or interesting qualities whatsoever, Sauron and his minions are just this ultimate evil, it feels almost like self parody. Compare Sauron to someone like Hannibal Lecter for instance, Sauron becomes dumb and not that interesting, they might as well had replace him for a natural disaster or something, he has the same personality, i.e. none at all. of course this was more in line with the common sentiment of the past century, when the bad guys were the bad guys and the good guys the good guys, no question about it. Also the same reason why back then war was seen as something honorable and glorious. In modern times that sentiment just doesn't ring true for a lot of people. I mean anyone likes a badass battle, but to emotionally engage in it you need more than just "evil wants to rule the land".

It's a shame you feel that way as Sauron is a far deeper character than you give him credit for. But it's perfectly understandable considering the manner in which Peter Jackson and co adapted Sauron for their trilogy. They could have done it in a far more effective and ultimately rewarding manner, but they didn't and it's just one the things they didn't get right.

[mantidor]

It's a shame you feel that way as Sauron is a far deeper character than you give him credit for. But it's perfectly understandable considering the manner in which Peter Jackson and co adapted Sauron for their trilogy. They could have done it in a far more effective and ultimately rewarding manner, but they didn't and it's just one the things they didn't get right.

I always suspected that the books developed everything more, the problem is that they are just freaking unreadable. Again, I think is just the cultural difference, they sure loved to sing and break into poetry back then.

I'll probably give them another shot in the future.

[Kung Fu Jedi]

It's a shame you feel that way as Sauron is a far deeper character than you give him credit for. But it's perfectly understandable considering the manner in which Peter Jackson and co adapted Sauron for their trilogy. They could have done it in a far more effective and ultimately rewarding manner, but they didn't and it's just one the things they didn't get right.

To be fair, Sauron isn't much of a character in the Lord of the Rings books either. He had more of a presence in the films than he really did in the books, in which he was mostly spoken of in hushed tones and the Unblinking Eye was spied from afar.

But agreed that if Jackson had found a way to incorporate more of the things we know about Sauron from the other books, that he is a more interesting character than what we've seen. As it stands though, there isn't much to see in him other than his will to dominate Middle Earth and enslave the other races.

[Edmond Dantès]

I always suspected that the books developed everything more, the problem is that they are just freaking unreadable. Again, I think is just the cultural difference, they sure loved to sing and break into poetry back then. I'll probably give them another shot in the future.

Consider 'The Simarillion' which is far more gritty than The Lord of the Rings and lacking in poetry and song and expands Sauron's character even more.

[Kung Fu Jedi]

Consider 'The Simarillion' which is far more gritty than The Lord of the Rings and lacking in poetry and song and expands Sauron's character even more.

Yes, but it is also a FAR tougher read than the Lord of the Rings in my opinion. If someone struggles to read LOTR, then I'd never recommend that they try to read The Simarillion.

That said, I absolutely adore The Simarillion. It is so epic in scope that it makes LOTR seem like a children's tale in comparison.

[Edmond Dantès]

To be fair, Sauron isn't much of a character in the Lord of the Rings books either. He had more of a presence in the films than he really did in the books, in which he was mostly spoken of in hushed tones and the Unblinking Eye was spied from afar. But agreed that if Jackson had found a way to incorporate more of the things we know about Sauron from the other books, that he is a more interesting character than what we've seen. As it stands though, there isn't much to see in him other than his will to dominate Middle Earth and enslave the other races.

I'm hoping Peter and co do that with The Hobbit; to show Sauron's great cunning and intelligence as well as his fabled sorcery
skills that he used to such great effect throughout the Quenta, especially in Of Beren and Luthien with the Songs of Power in his duel against Finrod.

[Kung Fu Jedi]

I'm hoping Peter and co do that with The Hobbit; to show Sauron's great cunning and intelligence as well as his fabled sorcery skills that he used to such great effect throughout the Quenta, especially in Of Beren and Luthien with the Songs of Power in his duel against Finrod.

They actually have a chance to do just that, as we may see Sauron in his Necromancer form, before Gandalf drove him out of the forest. Obviously that was a side story in The Hobbit, not part of the main narrative, but we know that's what Gandalf was up to when he left Thorin and Company and we also know that Jackson is expanding on those elements to bridge the films and stretch the Hobbit out into two movies.

[Fallout-NL]

Fellowship is still the best. One word Boromir

Sean Bean was incredible as Boromir. "...my brother, my captain, my king....." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBSLBl-64fk Manly tears indeed.

Yeah this, I didn't like RotK, they should have done something about the ending. Ruined the whole thing for me. So fucking sappy, ugh.

[Edmond Dantès]

They actually have a chance to do just that, as we may see Sauron in his Necromancer form, before Gandalf drove him out of the forest. Obviously that was a side story in The Hobbit, not part of the main narrative, but we know that's what Gandalf was up to when he left Thorin and Company and we also know that Jackson is expanding on those elements to bridge the films and stretch the Hobbit out into two movies.

As long as the Necromancer/White Council sub-plot doesn't overshadow Bilbo's quest and his growth as a character which is what the crux of The Hobbit is, I'll be happy.

[LevelNth]

Incredible film, incredible trilogy. Can't wait to revisit the world with The Hobbit.

Though its unfortunate it'll drag along more incessant whining from book purists and fools who can't tell two mediums apart. It's agonizing with Game of Thrones right now.

[SCHUEY F1]

For some reason in Fellowship I really dislike the slow motion shots of the Orcs running through the woods then the zoom in on the growling face.

[Kung Fu Jedi]

Incredible film, incredible trilogy. Can't wait to revisit the world with The Hobbit. Though its unfortunate it'll drag along more incessant whining from book purists and fools who can't tell two mediums apart. It's agonizing with Game of Thrones right now.

The books are my favorite of all time and I have read them more times than I can remember. That said, I think Jackson did a great job brining them to the big screen and most of his changes I can support and understand. But there were several that were just plain unnecessary and changed characters/situations when there was either no need or the books simply worked better. Those are the ones that bother me the most.

Hopefully The Hobbit won't have major issues in that department, although his addition of things that didn't take place in the book, at least not directly, could be potentially problematic. All of that said, The Hobbit is my most anticipated film of the year.

[mantidor]

Incredible film, incredible trilogy. Can't wait to revisit the world with The Hobbit. Though its unfortunate it'll drag along more incessant whining from book purists and fools who can't tell two mediums apart. It's agonizing with Game of Thrones right now.

As someone who hasn't read the books from what I gather is actually the opposite. I always felt that these movies are more for the fans and the people that know the lore than for a newcomer. Its all about grand speeches and battles, but it never present them in a way someone who knows nothing about middle earth should care about. the movies never managed to make me care about Frodo fulfilling his quest or not, I only kept watching because of the battles and music, which were just spectacular, but Frodo could have failed I couldn't have cared less.

[Truant]

LOTR was worth watching simply to see Aragorn friendzone that blonde medio.