Skillful indeed.

I'm convinced Russians are like dwarves from the Hobbit movie where no matter how utterly audacious the physical movement, they have it under control because every single Russian is skillful enough enough to account for the odd, but aptly timed behavior of other Russians.

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Your video, Martin Freeman is a sneaky little hobbit with his ..!.., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

At least he's giving the Hobbit it's deserved time. Ender's Game is just a big mess with the movie being as short as it is.

The kind of sarcastic, awkward "The Office"-style humour they introduced into the first Hobbit movie was a real turn-off for me, as was the sloppy, rushed-looking CGI (there's a scene at Rivendell where they didn't even bother replacing the scale doubles' faces with the actors' faces) and the odd habit of having the characters fall hundreds of feet onto solid rock without breaking any bones (this happens at least three times in An Unexpected Journey).

The Hobbit is a children's book, and doesn't meet the tone of its sequel very well, even after Tolkien's revised edition. It is a lighter book than the Lord of the Rings, in every sense, and the first film showed that it really can't bear the weight of either the padding PJ has added to the story, nor the efforts to bring a more Rings-style feeling of epic seriousness to what is a small, selfish story about some dwarves looking for gold. The epic/serious tone constantly conflicts with the childish slapstick humour, meaning that neither really work.

It would have been much better as a single 2.5-hour film. I dread to think how much wandering about, awkward humour, diversions from the story, too-weighty extracts from the LOTR appendices and (oh goody) dull Elven love story padding is to come in the next 6 hours of this trilogy.

This is NOT The Hobbit.

Nah, they're not THAT bad.

...and to be fair, Lucas had no clue what the prequels would be when he did ep. 4-6, he just made shit up. At least The Hobbit was written BEFORE LoTR.

Your video, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug - Official Main Trailer, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Misty Mountains (The Hobbit Theme Song) has been added as a related post - related requested by deathcow on that post.

Misty Mountains (The Hobbit Theme Song) has been added as a related post - related requested by deathcow on that post.

Misty Mountains (The Hobbit Theme Song) has been added as a related post - related requested by deathcow on that post.

Misty Mountains (The Hobbit Theme Song) has been added as a related post - related requested by deathcow on that post.

I'm not sure if you actually disagree or just misunderstand. I have no issue with fantasy, except when it's put in place of reality. I enjoyed LOTR and Hobbit, and I even want to see Pacific Rim (although I must admit I'm embarrassed about it). When fantasy replaces history, history is lost.
When you tell a story that's historical in nature, I (and many others) feel you have an obligation to your audience to teach them the actual history, not to bastardize and fictionalize it with fantasy and Neo. I'm sorry if you feel that way of thinking makes me a jerk, it wasn't what I was going for. I feel it makes me an adult that is unapologetic about being interested in amazing history more than flashy fantasy.
My point about Lincoln has been ignored or misunderstood...would you have liked to see him fight a confederate dragon? Would that have added to, or detracted from the compelling adult story being told? Was Lincoln Vampire Hunter as good a movie as Lincoln in any way? Did the addition of Vampires help you understand the person or time period, or would it have confused you about the historical facts if you knew nothing about the subject(s)?
I understand 300 was not meant to be historical, but it has the same issues with adding fantasy and drama to a well known, historical story. This is a big pet peeve of mine, as I feel most people have a tenuous grasp of history at best, and are not served by being told about historical events in a clearly non-historical, unreal, dramatized, and fantasized manner. It is especially egregious when there is no historical version to point to (in English at least, there is Chushingura in Japanese) when discussing the subject. I read mostly science fiction, and I read both 300 and The Gates of Fire, and while I loved 300, I wish the latter had been made first. I have read many versions of 47 Ronin, and none of them had a dragon or any unrealistic fantasy. Any of them would have made a great action packed adult movie with many lessons to teach rather than just a fun few hours watching Neo save the Asians. To me, adding the fantasy is tantamount to saying the story isn't compelling enough without embellishment, and this one certainly is. To me, it's the same as exaggeration, it's like admitting reality isn't good (or bad) enough to make the point in your argument. Pure fantasy is exempt from this issue.
P.S. sorry for the essay.

Damn, too late.
*related=http://videosift.com/video/THEYRE-TAKING-THE-HOBBITS-TO-ISENGARD