oh please no.....not peter jackson anybody but himhe jacked aroud LOTR and now he gets to goof up the hobbit?....i'll be skipping this movie

gotta love retards...the movies are going to be something GRAND, just as the ones before. Thankfully, they are launching 2 movies to deliver a full experience.

Everyone disliked Gimli? That's the first I've heard of it. I can't really think of a reason why he was portrayed badly as a dwarf.

The movies were great if you didn't read the books first. My wife constantly complained about how inaccurate the movies were. I told her it wasn't my fault she read the books. Lol

First I've heard of people hating Gimli as well. I've never heard of anyone disliking Gimli. It sounds like a personal problem to me. I also don't think it's "thankful" that they're making two films instead of one. I think the Hobbit would work best as a single film. Might need to be 3 hours long, but I think it could fit 2 hours. I can't disagree more about the complaints. I think the Hobbit translates better into a film than any of the LOTR books. I think it will end up being the best overall of the series. As long as they break out the actors from the original film except for Ian Holm as Bilbo, it should be good. I still think it's a mistake chopping it into two movies. If I had to pick a Tolkien book that had movie gold written on it, I'd choose the Hobbit. And if they could make LOTR a success, the Hobbit should be a snap.

I really hope he actually reads the book this time ;-)

I agree with SEALBoy. Everyone I know liked Gimli. He was the humor of the films.

I don't know anyone who didn't like Gimli... and while PJ has his faults, he did a fine job on LOTR and I think he can do the same with The Hobbit. Right out of the gate he's making the right moves (two movies instead of one).

I think Vignette movies can work very well when in competent hands. I just saw "No Country for Old Men", which was a typical Vignette movie... and one of the best movies I've seen this year.

As long as they do better in the casting department than they did for LOTR, it should be pretty good. (ie. Frodo). Please, please, PLEASE do not cast anyone even remotely resembling Elijah Wood for Bilbo. It would be cool to get Ian for Gandalf again though, he's not too old yet!

Did someone post this to the gimlifan.com forum or something? Whenever I showed the films to people not familiar with the books the Gimli lines got the groans. Maybe all my friends are idiots. It's possible.

I'm not a Gimli hater but I think thirteen dwarves in a film is a little much.

Some of you guys liked Gimli? Wow, he was horrible. I suppose it's not Jackson's fault, Gimli is a terrible character to begin with, just a total automatic and bland Tolkien personality. If someone can put some realism into the Hobbit it could be great. The whole major complaint about Tolkien in the first place is the soulless one dimensional characters, and if you didn't realize this while reading them I'd wager you haven't read too much fantasy. The whole bad guys and good guys style is very outdated and tacky compared with some of the far superior contemporary fantasy works such as George RR Martin and the like.

Of course we will never see that kind of series adapted to film, far too complex and depressing for your average filmgoer. Furthermore the age old Tolkien defense: "tolkien started all fantasy blah blah blah" will not work on anyone who is well read so don't try that argument with me, Tolkien had his fantasy inspirations as well. That being said again this could be a great action packed movie, and I would hate to see Jackson overproduce it like he did the trilogy. So hopefully he will sit back and produce it and let someone a little bit more creative and daring take the helm, it needs a grittier more realistic approach with a more palpable sense of danger.

1. As I understand it, the production order is for: 1. a Hobbit film, and then, 2. a 'gap-bridging' film taking place after the Hobbit but before the first LOTR. (I think the 2nd film sounds more interesting)

2. The source material for a movie doesn't necessarily indicate the quality of the movie. I agree that the book, if pursued most literally, would make for a DIFFICULT adaptation project. What does that suggest? To me, that the adaptation will take more liberties. Probably lots of tight edits / cuts of plot.

3. Honestly, first I've heard about people disliking Gimli as well. And no, I'm not from 'Gimli lovers' forums. His lines could be trite, but they were true to character and they worked.

NERDS

It isnt gimlifan.com, but I've never watched LOTR where people disliked Gimli. Legolas, on the other hand..

I'm pretty excited about The Hobbit, but I agree with Maxor127 that it should be one movie. The LOTR books are as long as The Hobbit, but are each one movie as well. Also, I think Jackson did a good job interpreting the books. Every time a movie based off of a pre-existing book comes out, people complain that it didnt follow it word-for-word. It drives me mad, because that's basically impossible. So I do hope he gets to direct again, and I also hope they bring in Howard Shore for music.

I'm very excited about this movie. The Hobbit is a great story and brings back good memories. I enjoyed the cartoon movie they made about it and the book. I cannot wait!

"Remember Gimli from the LOTR movies that everyone disliked?"

If by disliked you mean nobody was swooning over his hottness then sure, but if by dislike you mean genuinely despised then get a grip and keep your personal issues to yourself. He wasn't an issue and no else was bothered by him save for teenage girls.

Baz, I sense some serious aversion for Tolkien. While i'll agree he didn't invent fantasy and had his influences, his stories, over years, pushed fantasy into the mainstream more than any other fantasy author. Also, his art of world-building, with races languages, poetry, cultural backgrounds, is a tremendous accomplishment that spans the breadth of several books. Yes, his characters from the LotR series were somewhat bland, but the point of that series was to be an epic. Just contemplate how many characters of import were in the story and how long it would have taken to flesh out each one. When I read a contemporary fantasy author I can't help but be thankful for Tolkien for serving as a partial impetus for these amazing stories. I also thought that the Children of Hurin was a fantastic read, very different in tone from the trilogy. I haven't read Martin, but I will certainly check him out.

What kind of ^$&#ing nonsense is this? The LOTR films were immaculate. The characters were well written, well acted. And we owe it all to Peter Jackson. If you own all three movies on DVD (no matter the "edition") and you're disappointed that Peter Jackson is going to produce the next two films, you're nothing but a hypocrite.

Whoever wrote the editorial on top of this press release must be suffering from a mental disability of some sort. Peter Jackson will make these hobbit films shine, if he's given the creative license he needs to do it.

Oh, and I agree with Paul, you're all a bunch of NERDS!

"The LOTR films were immaculate. "

Nothing is ever immaculate. The movies were very well done, but they definitely had their issues. In my personal opinion, the most egregious of these issues was the casting and extension of Arwen's role. There were many inconsistencies between the movie and the book that were not easily explained by the limitations of production. I'm glad Peter Jackson is going to do The Hobbit. I'm a fan of the movies. However, claiming perfection is hardly called for.

I don't know what you people are saying about the movies being bad, especially evrt63. While you cannot put everything into the movie thats in the book, i was very pleased with they way the movies turned out. And where does this Gimli hate come from?

Tolkien was the person that got me reading. Without him I'd be another one of those jack ass mall rats.

What a bunch of horrible pedants you all are, bickering like a horrendous cross between high-school girls and sexless thirty-plus Slashdot devotees. Get a grip.

A lot of people just don't understand that books and movies are entertaining in different ways. Books can describe emotions, feelings, thoughs, and other inner goings-on, while movies can only do visual things. I think people who knock the LOTR trilogy or Harry Potter movies need to take a moment to think about this. Converting a book into visual media, or vice versa, requires a lot of modification to make it work.

With that being said, I really enjoyed the LOTR trilogy and can't wait to see what Jackson does with the Hobbit.

Replace the dwarves with thirteen replicas of JarJar. Throw in a little green man plus a few Ewoks.

There. Just like in the book.

I've read the books 4 times as a series since 1985, and I don't have a clue as to WT heck this accuracy issue comes up as? Ohh... No Tom Bombadil...Oh Eleves in the Battle at Helm's Deep? What the Heck...how much of nerd have you gotta be to NOT understand that some things would have to change? HULLO...the movies where all WELL over 3 hours each...it's like...GET A CLUE...Everything can't reach your fan-dom expectation. There is a real world out there. Oh...other absolute nerdish compliant...ooh. it wasn't Arwen who stop the riders in Fellowship...LOL...are you kidding me...WTF? The rest of the world will thing the movies are AWESOME, as will true fans, not some secret click of hardcore "fans".

I'm not sure why a person would say 'The Hobbit' isn't a good source for a movie. It was already made as an animated film, which I loved as a kid, even after reading the book.

I have to laugh at those who say "I'm not going to bother seeing this movie, it's going to suck!" or some such drivel. I go to the movies for entertainment, not to find out if it 'turned out' the way I thought it should. Sure I have my opinions of a film afterwards, but to say No to seeing it before knowing anything but the producers is a bit short sighted and small minded.

Just a quick point, and maybe I'm not the only one who noticed this, but i didn't carefully read all the comments:

A sequel to "The Hobbit"? I thought they already made the Lord of the Ring...

I've heard these films are excepted to be only in 2010, or in the beginning of 2011. That's will be great event for all Tolkien's fans. We just need to be patient to wait.

http://lord-of-the-rings.org/hobbit.html