My experience of the first movie involved me scolding these hipster morons to shut up because they were talking the entire movie.

That being said, really didn't think it was all that great.

Hopefully the second will be better.

I thought the hobbit was great. Then again, it was also part of a great date. But I've loved the book and I thought the movie was good. Some haunting moments.

i think it was pretty. half the dwarves were just nondescript filler characters.

maybe it's because i had read the book and didn't realize it was part of a triology going in.
the entire time i was thinking "this is a long movie, how the hell hasn't ____ even happened?" and it just seemed super long.

The Hobbit was the first book I really enjoyed reading, and I really enjoyed the first Hobbit movie. I'm glad that Peter Jackson is going with a more cinematic approach, even if it's stretchy a number of scenes out or making certain things silly. Looking forward to the next movie!

Best movie ever made.

I think its obvious that's one of my favorite books.

Really didn't see why it needed to be three movies. Don't get me wrong, I thoroughly enjoyed them. I just don't understand why The Hobbit is three movies and the Lord of the Rings was just as many even though it had so much more content...

~SE++

Money.

The original plan that Peter Jackson wanted to go with was Two movies for LotR...but when he went to line, he was all dead set and ready to argue why he thought it needed two, but they said Why not three? As for the hobbit it was originally meant to be just Two

As a representation of the Hobbit, my favorite book, he raped it and cut it up into pieces. It was offensive in what he added to make it more "exciting". Radagast was overblown, he troll scene was all wrong, the fight and flight in the Misty Mountains caves was warped and overblown, the entrance into Rivendell contrived, the tension with Elrond and the party contrived, and the whole thing with Azog was so not anywhere in the story that it should be insulting to Tolkien fans who actually read deep enough to have read the Silmarillion. Jackson's choices in the LotR trilogy made sense from a movie perspective, for the most part, not going into it here, but Jackson's ego butchered this story so much it shouldn't be called the Hobbit. Totally unnecessary and sickening.

I really don't even want to see the dragon or the Battle of the Five Armies, now. Pity.

Edit: I was looking forward to this, but not any longer. I'll just introduce my little boy to the books when I read it to him, but leave out the movie part...ughh!

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan tbh.

It's my favorite Trek movie, but wouldn't you agree that Ricardo Montalban was overblowing the character? I think for me, that's my favorite Trek only in comparison to the drek that the rest of the movie franchise put out.

I think Montalban handled Khan quite exceptionally. I liked his Khan better than Cumberbatch's by a longshot. Montalban was downright menacing, contemptible in ST2. Spitting hateful words at Kirk even before his death. I loved it.

I suppose, but to me he just came across as the guy off of Fantasy Isle with a bad wig and attitude, but totally Montalban. Worked as a madman, I guess.

Arcane archer, honestly, what did you expect? If they made a film that was true to the book, it would appeal only to Tolkien fans, and there's no way they would be able to fund the movie off of just those sales. The obvious thing for them to do is make it like every other summer blockbuster, get the cash moneys, then ignore the vast minority of their audience that are actual Tolkien fanboys.