Does it make a difference to the plot that hobbits don't wear shoes, and have hair on their feet? If not, would you not mind if the movies gave boots to one of them, in order to make it easier for the audience to tell them apart?

Beards may not be relevant to the plot, but they are very relevant for the dwarves. They are often referenced in the text and in the dialogue. Could someone seriously say "may your beard grow ever longer" to movie-Thorin? Shortening a dwarf's beard is a much bigger change than changing someone's hair color. It is, in a way, similar to breaking continuity in a TV series. It breaks continuity with what we knew from that world. It will not matter to the casual viewer, but it will make it harder for the fan to suspend disbelief and think "this is Thorin".

Surely the changes had a purpose, but that doesn't mean they were necessary. If they wanted to show that Thorin, Fili and Kili were young, they could just give grey beards and wrinkles to the others. Or I am sure there are many other ways that would be more consistent with what we know of Middle Earth. I have yet to see a plausible argument to the contrary.

Saying there's a better solution doesn't really constitute as proving there is. Well, there probably is, but I can't think of one. You can't either.

You'd end up having a bunch of men with long beards and a good half of them would have wrinkles and grey beards. You know, like Gandalf.
I can imagine someone saying "may your beard grow ever longer" to movie-Thorin, why not? He DOES have a beard. Admittedly not a long one, but a beard nonetheless.

Again, they just shifted the scale of how bearded dwarves are from a young age, it's not important.
As for you hobbit feet example - we're not watching their feet the whole movie.

Beards are important dwarven traits, yes. That's why 93% of the dwarves have facial hair and only one of them doesn't.
Not sure if you noticed, (I didn't in the cinema, only saw this in the companion books) the dwarven women do have facial hair.
The movie acknowledges the importance of beards, it just adjusts its scale to better serve character design.

Well having read the Chronicles book which largely deals with the look of the film I can confirm that is NOT lichen on Radagast's face.

I'm happy for you that you found a nice little fan fiction article about the subtle relationship between three of PJ's dwarf characters.

Well then you should stay off the internet. It took me all of 3 seconds to pull up 100,000+ hits on google.

You might not want to start with the very first listing:

http://www.hollywood.com/news/The_Hobbit_H...Turner/46233510

I particularly like this quote:

Jackson knows what audiences want: More of the hot one, please!

I'm not convinced that the medium of film should be used an an endurance test.

I'm not sure why you have to be a jerk about it. I did not claim there was a better solution, I gave one that, to my mind, was better. And I explained why I thought beards were more important than hair color or other things. You are free to disagree, but I'd appreciate if you didn't pretend I'm just trolling.

So, having made up my mind NOT to see the film, yesterday I, of course, went to see it - what can I say, I needed a break from all the holiday cheer and figured three hours in Middle Earth couldn't hurt. Expecting to be disappointed, I can happily say that I was surprised by how much I actually enjoyed it. So much so, indeed, I voted the film an 8 (along with, it seems, the majority of others).

I will readily admit to being a Tolkien-purist and decidedly not much of a fan of the first trilogy, however, I found very little in this first film that absolutely galled me, e.g. the character of Faramir, who so little resembled the character from the books, that Jackson/Fran should've simply changed his name.

I felt the pacing in the early going to be fine (except for having to suffer an appearance by Elijah "O Sam" Wood). I thought Laketown well depicted (in my minds-eye, I've always viewed them as akin to the Kievan Rus - both Viking and Slav). Had no real issue with the Elvenking - the depiction even made me return to research and discover that Thranduil was apparently present at the Sack of Doriath (shame on me for not knowing that) so the whole not-sending-the-cavalry thing makes sense, and I suspect will be further elaborated upon in a later film. I was just waiting to be offended by the portrayal of Radagast and was surprisingly not - rabbit sled included - and was actually sorry to see him disappear after the chase. I really liked how they portrayed the Dwarves as warriors, despite their buffoonery (a point to which I'll return) holding their own mightily against the trolls (whereas, you'd have to admit, they botched that whole thing in the book), Gandalf exhorting them to take the fight to the goblins, and even making a desperate stand against the wolves and, well . . . ahem, Azog. Goblin Town seemed about right to me (granted, my minds-eye is muddled by memories from Rankin-Bass). And, I even get the bringing forward of Bilbo in both the troll scene in addition to the "Out of the Frying Pan" scene.

Granted, no amount of yelling by Jackson apologists will ever make me truly agree that "film is a different medium, requiring changes to the story," I think I will give them a pass that the tone between The Hobbit and the trilogy is difficult (even for a purist) to reconcile so, making the Dwarves and Bilbo a bit more heroic is welcome.

Now, to my earlier point about buffoonery - at what point did the world decide that Dwarves should be depicted as sources of comic relief?

My understanding of Dwarves has always been that they were, of course, stiff-necked, proud, perhaps a bit "officious" (Thorin, anyone?), but . . . and this is HUGE, always dignified. When did gratuitous beer-swilling and public belching become acceptable behavior in the Dwarven community. Obviously, much of that is a sop to the children, pre-teens, and teenagers in the audience and, notwithstanding their general ineptitude in the book, I find it distasteful and not in accord with my understanding of Dwarven culture. I'm no Tolkien scholar and I also admit that Dwarves are my favorite culture but I think you'd be hard put to it to show me in canon where they act without a high degree of both nobilitas and dignitas.

This brings me to the short-bearded Dwarf question - as above, I rated the movie an 8, so I wasn't clearly offended by the shorter beards on Thorin, Fili, Kili, and that cat with the slingshot. I'm certain that a fair amount of audience testing went into the whole affair, with general audiences, on the whole, wanting more of the younger Thorin, and short bearded younglings. While I would've much preferred to see a nearing 200 Thorin and two blond Vikings as Fili and Kili - I understand the need for audiences to identify with the "Young King" as I believe someone put it. Let's face it, youth will always win - especially in America (and, I say this, being an American). Don't think for a moment I wouldn't have liked to have seen the older, canon Thorin but, I think folks would've needed a much more extensive backstory to feel wedded to his cause just from the film. Further, it is clear to me from other books, movies, and video games in the fantasy genre, manly Viking beards just, clearly, don't resonate with fashion in the 20th and 21st Centuries - sadly. It seems full beards, in the West, went out of style after the 1860s, never to return.

Having admitted to being a big fan of Tolkien's Dwarves, I too had an issue with that varied ridiculousness that is their hairstyles, beards, and cultural weapon stylings. I understand the point about audiences needing to differentiate between them all but, I really feel like colored hoods probably could've effected the same result - I mean, there really are a lot of them, and not even three hours (or, in my case, more like 30-35 years) can compensate. Even now, I'd be hard pressed to tell you the differences between Bifur and/or Dori so, what would it really matter the general audience beyond recognizing the key players of Balin, Dwalin, and Gloin?

Well, enough rant - I thought enough of thew film to give it an 8 and look forward to see the following films.

Well now, family commitments over the holiday period have prevented me from seeing the movie up to this point. I do intend to resolve this in the next day or two.

If it was not for the huge Market for merchandise that this trilogy will generate, I think that we might only have seen the principal Dwarf Players plus Fili, Kili and Bombur. The others would probably have been Dwarfs who make up the numbers and named only in passing.

The toy and miniature Market is the reason that each was required to have an individual appearance. Well that's my tuppence worth on that.

As for drunken, boorish and loutish behaviour. I blame Games Workshop. Their literature and games are full of drunken, boorish and loutish Dwarfs. Their fingers are into this particular pie past the elbow.

Someone has mentioned Dwalin sporting a Mohawk at the battle of Azanulbizar. Gotrek Gurnisson anyone?

While on the subject, I believe that the film has a slightly different slant on the reasons for the Quest of Erebor and that what is basically a 'bank job' in the book is now a quest by the Dwarfs to reclaim their home.
I'm just wondering why they didn't invent some story about the Long Beard kin having shaved their beards as an act of contrition,Kind of like the GW Slayer oath, to allow Richard Armitage and Aidan Turner to be 'handsome Dans'.

It's probably a variation of the "mask" rule. No starring actor wants to have their face hidden from view under a mask or pile of whiskers. It makes the job of acting harder, and let's face it most actors have a whopping amount of vanity. If this is the case then too bad the actors in the Hobbit aren't more like Karl Urban.

"Granted, no amount of yelling by Jackson apologists will ever make me truly agree that "film is a different medium, requiring changes to the story,"

Then you are denying a fact of life. Some scenes in books don't translate well, or are too difficult to do, or just don't move the story along (or could stop it dead in it's tracks.) What does the the Tom Bombadil scene really accomplish story wise...other then being a really boring way to save the Hobbits from the Barrow Wraiths? (Cheap!) This is one of those examples of a scene not even translating well in it's home medium. Granted, Director's do, very offten, take liberities that they don't have to, but to say that the base arguement has no valid standing is just silly, IMO.

SPOILER & lengthy post ALERT!
Well I finally went to see The Hobbit today, in 3D at regular frame-speed (I think!)
I give it an 8. Having read all the gripes & reviews I generally accept the many points made and can see how they may frustrate viewers .... I have my own issues with the movie, yet I still really enjoyed it.
Some things I noted:

I thought Dale was well done ... having never had a crystal clear take on it in my own mind's eye - I was impressed to see it come to life. The flying kites spoke to me of the toy market.
Erebor was simply magnificent ... and the treasure!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Female dwarves - I saw at least one fleeing the gates of Erebor post-Smaug, and she had great, bushy sideburns (no beard though). I also noted a female dwarf in the initial Dale scene in the markets, with dark dress & dark braided hair - she too had no beard.

I'm absolutely gobsmacked by Smaug ... I can't wait to see him in full glory! I love the way PJ showed only suggestive glimpses of Smaug's majesty & might.

I quite liked the movie's portrayal of Radagast... even the bird-nest hat and the rabbit-sled. I had previously never pictured him being quite so ... skitterish & mousey, but I can see where PJ is going with that.
It's been my understanding that Radagast has conflated his original Istari mission with his love & affinity for M.E's flora & fauna (he was sent by Yavanna & Orome was he not?), and that's why he is a herbalist/druid -type rather than a proud wizardly powerbroker. I also think that PJ has put a tiny essence of Tom Bombadillo in the Radagast concept... just a thought!
A few have questioned why the monsters attacking Rhosgobel suddenly left ... I believe that Radagast rarely summons his Istari 'deep' magic - perhaps has almost forgotten it - and relies on his great nature/herbalism knowledge for his day-to-day woodsy ways. When these skills failed him at a critical moment you will have noticed that he fell into a trancelike state, and his deeper Istari magic was summoned. THIS is what scared the fell creatures away IMHO.
I liked the bunny-sleigh. Why wouldn't a wizard of forest-magics have some trick for fast travel through thick forest?

I generally liked the Dwarves and how individual they were. I find the axe-head remnant in Bofur's forehead a bit comical ... perhaps testament to just how hardy dwarves are!
Thorin does seem regal to me, but yes - he should have a proud long beard.
Fili & Kili don't look like dwarves to me, whereas Ori does look like a teenage dwarf (a bit mothered by his elder Dori!).
I don't think that Dwalin's bald pate is true baldness - but simply a partially-shaved head to show off his battle-rune tatts (you may also have noted them on his arms, hands & fingers).

I loved the visions of the Battle of Azanulbizar ... it was intense. I recall thinking to myself at the time "Games Workshop fans are going to love this bit. The dwarves look like GW characters!"
Yes- the young Dwalin looked awesome with his massive mohawk, and I spotted a younger Bofur withOUT the axe-head!

Gripes:
- the amount of swinging/falling/running/leaping/teetering action scenes. It's not that I got motion-sick ... it just seems to be a grossly overused device in the movie. The stone giants, goblin-town, FryingPan-Fire precipice ... all just a bit too much, especially the escape from GoblinTown sequence - it went on FAR too long.
I think my disquiet is exacerbated by the fact that these scenes very closely mirrored similar scenes from FotR, for example:
Stone Giants = Caradhras storm & avalanche (& some teetering rock sequences from Moria)
GoblinTown escape = Moria escape
Gandalf vs GoblinKing (Dame Edna for Brit/Aus viewers) = Gandalf vs Balrog

- the escape from orcs & wargs in the hills (in/near Ettenmoors?) The company ducks down a cave in a hill, through a ravine and ... appears on the slopes above Rivendell. Must be Elvish magic!

- the GoblinKing spoke with erudition, and his goblins were somewhat technologically advanced with their rope-pulley systems and little goblin-scribes in baskets writing in books. Pish posh!

- I was jarred by the description (by Balin? Thorin?) of Erebor being the largest & most prosperous Dwarven settlement ever in M.E. To my mind Moria was the pinnacle of Dwarvish civilisation.

- Radagast's appearance west of the Misty Mtns was bamboozling. I too wondered how he got across the mtns on his rabbit-sled. To reconcile this in my own mind I've decided that he used his nature-magic to 'woodwalk' ... ie- magically transport from one remnant of Old Wood to another.
Gripes over now!

A few other things I liked were:
- riddles in the dark! Gollum is so much more expressive, funny and heart-breaking.
- the framing scene of old Bilbo & Frodo, especially that it took place the same day & immediately before the start of FotR movie.... nice touch PJ!
- Elladan & Elrohir riding with the Elvish cavalry. They were the 2 without helms who rode in with Elrond.
- Azog has Benedict Cumberbatch's eyes!
- The Necromancer is truly horrific (very much how I imagine The Gibbet King from TOR literature)
- Radagast refers to the spiders as spawn of Ungoliant
- the Arkenstone is truly wondrous
- Saruman blames Radagast's distraction on his enjoyment of mushrooms
- Gandalf soothes Radagast with a toke of pipeweed
- the thrush knocking at Erebor is what awakens ... Him!

I can't wait for the next movies ... bring on Beorn, Gandalf's mission into Dol Guldur, the WoodKing's court, Esgaroth, Smaug, and the Battle of Five Armies. Bring it on!

He speaks with erudition in the book.


-----
“Who are these miserable persons?” said the Great Goblin.


“Up to no good, I’ll warrant! Spying on the private business of my people, I guess! Thieves, I shouldn’t be surprised to learn! Murderers and friends of Elves, not unlikely! Come! What have you got to say?”


“Um!” said the Great Goblin. “So you say! Might I ask what you were doing up in the mountains at all, and where you were coming from, and where you were going to? In fact I should like to know all about you. Not that it will do you much good, Thorin Oakenshield, I know too much about your folk already; but let’s have the truth, or I will prepare something particularly uncomfortable for you!”

-----


But it is afterall, a children's book and children expect such niceties.

I stand well corrected Evening.
Strike out one gripe!

I saw it yesterday in 48 fps 3d ... LOVED it! Well worth every penny! This alone made me want to run out and immediately replace my TV with an HD TV. Everything was so incredibly life-like real, it felt as if you could almost touch everything and certainly put me in the middle of ... well, everything. I have never been a fan of 3d before, but I am a convert now. I look forward to seeing more films in 48 fps 3d and won't begrudge the extra fees for the privilege (unless, of course, the film itself stinks ... think of something along the lines of the Twilight series ... shudder).

CheeseWyrm, how much time have you spent looking at Benedict Cumberbatch's eyes if you can tell Azog has them??

Also, I thought Smaug was voiced by Cumberbatch, not Azog :s

I gave the movie an "8" as well. I really liked it, and thought for the most part it was wonderfully made (just as the LotR trilogy was).

I wasn't that bothered by the lack of beards. At least they had them! But I can see the point about Thorin being a Longbeard. FWIW, I think some of the criticisms here (about PJ and crew catering to test audiences and the like) are off-base. If you really look into how they've made these movies, you'll see that an amazing level of detail goes into their work. Not only Peter Jackson and Fran and Phillipa (herself a Tolkien scholar), but by Richard Taylor and the folks at Weta. They made the Dwarfs distintive on purpose, and a LOT of thought went into each and every one. Far more than most here would imagine.

They did a special on the show "Rock Center" that showed a bit of the behind-the-scenes. It showed how each of the Dwarfs spent days just learning how to "walk like a Dwarf" (with a very low center of gravity). The amount of care and detail that went into each character was very much carefully considered. I believe their biggest concern was trying to keep them being distinctive and unique.

I think there've been some good points about the crudeness and crassness of Dwarfs. Professor Tolkien likely wouldn't have cared for this approach. I've heard that he was quite upset with the way the Dwarves were portrayed in "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves", and I imagine he might have been a bit off-put with the belching and burping. At least they're not all being used as comedy relief as Gimli was in the other films.

I'm fine with them making three films. I trust PJ and crew to pace things out nicely and deliver a complete story that paces well. This one was a bit slow at the start, but I enjoyed the added parts and would be content just to see the grass grow in Middle-earth.

There were some parts I didn't care for. I thought the Goblin King looked like a Ballchinnian (from the "Men in Black" film), and Radagast was a bit too silly (the bird poop and all). Probably the thing I enjoyed the least was the ridiculous fall in the Goblin town, and how they all seemed to walk away with nary a scratch!

Regarding Azog, no Benedict Cumberbatch there. Azog was played by Manu Bennet (Crixus on the various "Spartacus" series).

Overall I thought the first film was excellently done. I saw it in 3D, and plan on checking out the 48 FPS soon just to see what it's like.

Yes I particularly like how they made Thorin younger than Balin in spite of the fact the opposite is true. Obviously the final decision on Thorin's appearance was based on their meticulous scholarly research and was in no way affected by the standard leading-man movie trope and merchandising considerations...



I apologise for sounding snarky, but arguments claiming the dwarfs' physical appearances were in no way influenced by marketing beggars belief.

Ok, playing devil's advocate here. I've heard (purely rumor) that sometimes an actor will demand their face be recognizable regardless of the demands of the role or wishes of anyone else involved in the production.

Considering Rhys-davies problem with the adhesive, this may very well have been a concern.

Mind, I have no knowledge of such. Not even rumor. Just saying that potential adverse reactions may have played a factor here.

To be fair, they don't. They skid on a platform that is bouncing down a crevice. While the platform staying together that long is very unlikely, the mostly unharmed dwarves are well within the acceptable norm for fantasy/adventure stories.


Anyway, I gave it a nine. The only thing I don't like is that Radagast was ridiculous/silly. Everything else I approve of.

The adding of Azog as a nemesis for Thorin is all positive, the added White Council scenes, the stone giants could have been a bit more "giants playing a game that almost kills the heroes", but it was fine, loved Dale, it was just all good, IMO.

But The Brown just...no. A reclusive, quirky hermit I would have been fine with, but that absurd laughing stock we got was terrible.


edit: I really don't understand the complaints about the beards. Honestly...so what? This is, to me, like Harry Potter fans complaining about Harry's eyes being the wrong color. How does this matter? The character remains the same. Effect is more important than details in telling a story, and this is storytelling.

The movie is nearly exactly what it should be.

I thought it was good fun, easily worth an 8.

The minuses were the rabbit sled and the goblin town escape. The goblin king was good but the whole thing dragged out and might have been better given a more claustrophobic feel, like Moria in FotR.

The change to the WitchbKing of Angmar pissed me off as well. According to the White Council he was slain and magically locked in a tomb beneath Rhudaur.

Er....no he wasn't. He ran away from Glorindel and hid IIRC. Wouldn't mind, but it causes a continuity error for RotK, does it not?

Just to be clear, I'm not claiming that there was no marketing influence, or desire to put some eye candy out there for the ladies. Just that there definitely was a lot of story considerations and care that went into the decisions as well.

The fact that all the Dwarves are supposed to look about the same age actually fits with what they gave us on screen. To me most of them looked (human-wise) to be roughly in their 30's-50's, so all within a decade or two of each other.

I must have missed this. What exactly was the change?

He clearly is a major foe in the three LotR movies. Did they mention him during the White Council scene? (if so I must have missed it).

IMHO the primary purpose of a movie trilogy that costs about 1 billion USD is to earn back its money plus a profit. Everything else comes second. That is only possible by getting as much as possible people into the theaters. And the vast majority of these are IMO people having either no or little book(s)-derived Middle-earth lore. For this audience, the internal structure of the movie must fit, not the adherance to the book.
Of course a strong negative echo by the Tolkien community would affect the opinions of these "normal" people as well, so the director has to factor this in his decisions; e.g. keeping changes at a level acceptable by the Tolkien community while still addressing the most likely needs or desires of the greater audience.

Cheers
Tolwen

In the White Council it was mentioned that he (the W-k) was slain long ago when Angmar was defeated. Then his body [sic!] was entombed and magically sealed. This tomb is now supposed to have been opened. At least that's how I understood Radagast's encounter and his report to Gandalf (which he in turn reported at the council).

Cheers
Tolwen

TOLWEN

Aye - that's my take. IMO tis totally reasonable that the Necromancer raised the wraith of the Ring-bearing WitchKing. I thought it was actually a nice touch.

BELEG

OK yes, Smaug is voiced by Mr Cumberbatch (should be interesting to see how the Holmes-Watson banter reflects in the Smaug-Baggins interaction). It has been reported that Benedict plays multiple roles in the films - Smaug being one, The Necromancer another. I thought Azog too.. I stand corrected, ta your Majesty.
When I saw Azog's eyes they reminded me of Cumberbatch's, as I've noted they are quite enigmatic & pale..... BUT no Beleg - I haven't spent inordinate time looking at his eyes .... sorry Benedict

@Tolwen, I agree that making money is the studio's main objective. PJ and crew, however, are trusted (especially after the gazillion $ they made the studios previously with similar films) to put their best product forward without a lot of studio hand-holding.

No doubt they do consider things like sex appeal and attractiveness, but it's my opinion that PJ and crew do what they feel is best (like making it three movies, rather than two), and very little is being mandated by the studio.

I'm sure many would view that as naive, but I base that on quite a bit of reading/watching behind the scenes info on the films. Things like reading tons of magazines and various 'Making Of' books (like the Visual Companions, and the "Weapons and Warfare" book) and watching the commentaries on the films, as well as reading lots on the web.

On the scene with the White Council, I'd missed that reference. I really need to see the film again, as I was a bit sleepy during the first third of it or so.

The results here tally with those found on other public forums and votes - about 8/10 or 80% is about the mode average.

The critics who aggregate at about 65% on Rotten Tomatoes, and below 50% for 'serious critics' are out of touch with the movie-watching public and target audience.

That's an asinine statement. You're saying that people who rate other blockbuster movies fairly high are not allowed to have any reservations with The Hobbit because they then are "out of touch with the movie-watching public and target audience."

On a more positive note, I've picked up two more players because of the movie. They also vowed to reread The Hobbit and one, The Silmarillion as well.

Reporting back after seeing the film again at 48 fps.
It made a slight difference in the viewing in that everything seemed to be imbued with greater .... richness (for want of a better decriptor). Twas like the best fantasy art scenes then animated into reality. I can't describe it better then that at the mo. I'd be interested to flick back & forth between 24 & 48 fps to really gauge the extent of difference - but I honestly do think it was quite beautiful to behold.

Also - I noted more lady dwarves, and 2 of them had fine beards, femininely groomed!
Dwalin's head is definitely shaved back - not bald.... he shaved the sides for the battle of Azanulbizar, hence the wicked mohawk!

Oh - Thorin had a longer (& beaded) beard in the earlier Erebor scenes. Perhaps he wears it shorter for the Quest of Erebor as a pride-thing??

@Cheesewyrm

If it hadn't been for the knock-on effect of mentioning the Witch King's earlier death on the events of RotK, then it would have been a nice little nod to another part of the ME mythos.
Unfortunately it resounds through the films and the doom placed on the Witch King by Glorfindel's woeful foresight is reduced to a mere moment of 'girl power' in a male dominated story.

No. It's a quote of fact as represented by the statistics I have already presented. As to whether they want to hold any particular view about the movie is up to them.

Hey, I don't like the Twilight series, but I'm not the target audience for that either. A professional critic, however, ought to at least acknowledge who a film is primarily aimed at when they come to assess how successful it is. If there is a disparity between the general consensus of an audience rating verses a select group of critics ratings, as there patently is in this case, then it begs questions - especially when most of those critics' reviews come out before the viewing audience have had a chance to see it.

I find the complaints about dwarven beard length to be a nuisance more than anything. The length of a beard was not core to anything about dwarven culture or the characterization of the dwarves (such that the book gave them characterization at all). Yes, there were a few trivial lines in the book referencing their long beards. So what? They were trivial. Tolkien is not a god, everything he writes is not perfect, and the gold standard for success is not measuring how closely adaptations map to the original. There are things about the original that should not be diluted, things which Tolkien in his letter insists upon like theme and character (which Peter Jackson hasn't exactly done a spectacular job with). Hair color and beard length are not, however, integral to the plot, characters, or theme of the story. Criticizing someone for innovation and imagination is nonsense.

Saw the movie for a second time last night, and enjoyed it even more than the first time (was too sleepy for some of the slower parts last time).

This time I saw it in 3-D 48FPS and thought it was (and looked) amazing. I do get the criticism, as sometimes it's almost too real (and looks like a soap opera), but often it's astonishing and makes you feel like you're right there. The special effects were incredible (better at the higher frame rate), and most of the CG characters looked seamless right next to their real-life counterparts.

Saw the Dwarf lady beards this time, and caught many more details that I'd missed the first time. Quite a bit of discussion about the Morgul Blade, but it seems clear that they're setting up some backstory about how the Witch King will return (impossible as Saruman believes it to be). The whole "darkness is growing in the land" theme is clearly one they're going to build throughout this trilogy.

There were still some parts that I cringed at, like the whole goblin town chase (and fall). Sometimes the running characters just looked too CGI. The wargs, too, looked way too fake to me the whole time (nowhere near as realistic as they seemed in the LotR trilogy). Radagast is a bit over-the-top sometimes, as well, with his goofy cross-eyed expressions and doltish behavior. His sled seemed to move a bit too fast at times, and why is that - if he was drawing off the wargs and riders - he didn't go a different direction instead of continuously looping around and drawing them back to the party?

The Dwarves beards didn't bother me, either, and I payed much closer attention after the discussions here. Thorin's beard, while not long, was certainly thick enough, and they added lots of gray/white (in streaks) to show that he wasn't a young buck. Balin does seem quite a bit older, however, and he looks to have aged more than most when one compares the flashback scenes with his present appearance.

The pacing and editing was spot-on, though. It moved along at a great pace, and every scene seemed important and carefully placed. A great movie, almost worthy of a 9!