Ghost of a flea

How interesting. And exciting. Oddly, I just started reading the Hobbit to my youngest two last week. Very very cool. Gives me something to look forward to movie wise other than Indy next summer. May I say w00t? W00t.

"Science fiction fantasy"??? Even in literature the cluelessness of the MSM is breathtaking.

Echoing Gorthos, I'm taking my youngest through CS Lewis' books right now in advance of "Prince C" next May. After that, we'll turn to The Hobbit.

My favourite childhood memories are of my Mum reading Tolkien and CS Lewis to the family. You guys kick ass.

meh...

Jackson's making "The Hobbit", which is a relatively thin children's book, into two movies.

However, the fat Kiwi bastard couldn't be bothered to include the last half to three quarters of "Return of the King".

I've heard Jackson skipped it simply because he didn't like it.

I didn't terribly mind Jackson skipping Tom Bombadil. (Which was rather tedious) However, "The Scouring of the Shire" is arguably the single most important part of "The Lord of the Rings".

I'm sure he'll screw up "The Hobbit" similarly.

I'll spend my theater money on the Narnia movies instead and wait until "The Hobbit" comes out on DVD.

That comment should win an award of some kind.

I agree The Scouring of the Shire is the most important part of The Lord of the Rings. It is also the part most applicable to our current worldly troubles. Perhaps New Line should have stumped for six films instead of three...

That said, I think Jackson did a magnificent job with the films and particularly the first one. I felt as though I was seeing landscapes I would only ever manage to half-way imagine properly. My concern about The Hobbit is I am not certain where the logical break is to make one novel into two films. As the company enters Mirkwood?

So hey, will you actually see this film in the theatre?

If it has Hobbits, Hogwarts or James Bond I am prepared to risk exposure to the hoi polloi.

I don't disagree that Jackson did a marvelous job with the parts of "The Lord of the Rings" that he did deign to film. Indeed, I spent umpty ump dollars buying the super-duper extended extra-length special directors cut including commentary from the second key grip and gaffer.

I watched it end to end with my wife with nary a stop for pee breaks. I yield to no man in my admiration of Tolkien.

That being said, the fact that he did such a stupendous job on what he did film shows how superlative a job he could have done on "The Scouring of the Shire".

That is the reason I despise him.

Well, King Kong sucked too, but I digress.

King Kong was horrendous. I know it is a poseurish to say but the original really was a masterpiece and the remake had none of its Lovecraftian horror.

Harrumph.. I happen to like the idea of Tom Bombadil. "My LOTR Includes Tom Bombadil".. I'm getting that on a shirt..

I am with Flea with regard to Bond, Hogwarts or Hobbits being that which will most likely drag me to sit with the stinky monkeys in a theatre.