Yeah that's the only thing that looked a little strange to me. However, I am 99% certain that there is no way that anyone with the barest scratch of sanity left would try to introduce a romance plot between Gandalf and Galadriel. I'm pretty sure that there's something different going on that will make perfect sense in the context of the movie, but just looks a bit off in the trailer. The woman's married for God's sake!

Looks good. The dwarves look very different to how I imagined them, but that's nothing I can't get used to.

My main concern still is that they're pushing too much for continuity with the LOTR film trilogy... even if it means deviating from the book. I'm sure a lot of average film-goers will be excited by the prospect of seeing some of their favourite characters from LOTR making an appearance, but for Tolkien fanatics like myself it's a bad sign.

I simply cannot watch the Lord of the Rings because I get a spike of annoyance every 30 seconds. But I am not so wedded to the Hobbit so I may be able to watch this one. It looks great, but then so did LotR mostly (I have seen trailers and a few minutes on TV now and then).

A romance between Galadriel and Gandalf would be ridiculous, since he is a kind of angel and she is married. But all she does is brush a strand of hair, so I doubt that happens. I wouldn't really put anything past Fran Walsh though, seems like she had little respect for the intention behind the story in LotR.

So uhhh, lots of important characters showcased, but where's Beorn?

That's what I thought at first too, but when i thought about it.. I don't want the leader of the dwarves to have a silly hat with a furry ball at it's end.. :/

A romance between Galadrial and Gandalf is not what I interpreted from that scene at all.

Ya at first glance the Gandalf/Galadriel thing seemed a little strange.

But, thinking about it it doesn't have to be a "romance" at all. Since we don't know the context. Could be a scene with Galadriel speaking with Gandalf about (or seeing Gandalf and reminiscing of) Valinor. That said it's not as if she has never met him prior to the Hobbit. But I'm gonna stick with some kind of flashback.

I'm kind of glad that they didn't go super dwarvish with all of them.

This..excites..my pants.

I cannot wait for this. Ogurl.

Also, stop saying "oh mai gawd I can't believe Jackson is doing this or that or that and this", this is HIS movie, just like he took liberty with LOTR.

If you want to make a Hobbit movie 100% true to the book, go ahead and do it yourself and stop complaining. But you have to make things theatrical. Just like pretty much EVERY book to film, it has to be presented in a way a movie is presented, not a book. That means some liberty must be taken.

Also, I see absolutely no insinuation of a romance between Gandalf and Galadriel. More of a friendship moment, IMO. Doesn't seem sixual or romantic whatsoever.

So what's the difference between Imax 3D and real D 3D? One is clearly in Imax theaters, so is Real D 3D for every other theater? Should have figure money would have been spent (wasted IMO) on doing the whole 3D thing but whatever I guess. It must be making the industry bank if they keep adding it to movies. Minor gripe I suppose.

I'm definitely going to need to read through the book again sometime soon, considering it's been about 8 years since I last did.

Uwe Boll does that too, and look how well respected he is.

That said, there's a difference between artistic liberty and pulling a http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DracoInLeatherPants. You have to establish a very large portion of the movie to the book if you want it to be well received, especially with a book considered a literary icon. This isn't HIS movie, it's a movie he's selling under the Tolkien estate's license. I just dont want to see Jackson rip out more vital story pieces like Tom Bombadil again.

Which is why I don't really like his LotR films; granted, they're not crap, but they're not really LotR either, at least not to me. So I'm not really expecting too much from this for the same reason.

To me, Gandalf looks darker, more broody, more badass. And the dwarves look perfect. If Jackson made them all reeeally look dwarven, we'd never tell them apart. Thorin looks badass too.

Honestly I don't think i'll mind if some changes are made, If I want to just relive the book, i'll read it. But that being said, it does need to stay very close in my opinion (if I make sense) and if it strays a lot, shouldn't we blame Guillermo del Toro? lol If I recall it was him wanting the old LotR cast back (not that I mind as long as its nothing major) along with some other stuff?

I can't stop watching the trailer.... over and over and over and over and over...

I can already tell the music is gonna be epic, Howard Shore would not let us all down.

And I absolutely love that song they sing... damn. Shivers up my spine.

Finally something good will be in theaters.. Can't wait!

It looks great Hopefully by then I will have got around to reading it.

Oh please. LOTR is hailed as one of the greatest trilogies of all time for a reason. He did an amazing job. It fits the books, I've read them. It took 8 years, but I read them.

It's not to the books to a T, no. but that's because you can't make something that big into a movie and be by the book.

Movies are not books, and books are not movies. During the transition, a change has to occur. Or it's going to be a horrible movie.

I haven't read all of three of the books, but I don't really see how they could have added more into the movies. They were all already well over two hours long.

I own the extended box set that has tons of interviews from the cast, crew and Tolkien experts and the writers explain very well why they had to cut some stuff from the movie. In many of the interviews they explained that the reason why the movies turned out so well is because everyone who worked on them, whether or not they had read the books, loved the Lord of the Rings. They loved the world they were making.

Plus, not having read the Fellowship of the Ring, I wasn't completely lost with the absence of Tom Bombadil.

They actually did record scenes with Tom in them, they are in the directors cut with the unseen footage. I have it.

It adds nothing to the film, and that's why they removed it.

That doesn't make me obliged to like them. Which is as well, as I don't especially.

Yeah, well, sure I guess.

They're great films, nay, amazing films. If you don't like it, that's your personal opinion. About 900 million people disagree with you, however.

Like I said in my previous post, which you edited out and didn't reply to, movies are movies and books are books. You simply cannot have a 9349034 page book crammed into a 3 hour film and not remove things/change things. Books are not theatrical, movies are. A transition has to be made. And Peter Jackson did an amazing job of it.

Agreed. I love the movies for what they are, but the books are so much more. But just because fifty million screaming fans say it's amazing doesn't mean it's true, it just means the popular consensus is that it's amazing.

It wasn't about more, they just didn't feel quite right to me. Although "the film's not as good as the books" is a complaint that's as old as the hills, in this case it's something much more abstract than "they didn't include x" or "they cut y" that makes them miss the spot for me.