I think for the first time with these films, I may be too lazy to drag myself to the theatre when I could be doing chores instead. The lackluster advertising this time around (compared to the previous films) doesn't exactly inspire me, but I can't think that it won't be anything we haven't seen before- cartoon CGI battles with lots of orcs and elves and dwarves and humans, the dialogue and quests really feel like we've already seen it all. It's the 3-D if anything that might be worth seeing, but I'm really not interested in much else. There comes a time where even the filmmakers seem over it, this series might be a candidate for that.

If anyone else is going, feel free to give opinions either way.

My wife is dragging me to see it saturday. I hated the first two movies. They completely butchered the story which is my all time favorite book as I read it a million times as a kid.

I am ok with changes to the story and the additions from the silmarillion but they completely changed the context of things and the character interactions. They took away pivotal moments from bilbo and turned him into something he wasnt in the book. Then they threw a huge wrench into the history of middle earth by keeping alive a orc that died a hundred years before the book even started. Then that orc becomes the main antagonist where there wasnt an antagonist like that in the book. And it all adds ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the storyline... It wasnt even Thorin who fought (and killed) Azog in the book. That was Dain who I am sure will appear in this third movie and everyone will go, "who the #%&*$# is Dain?" Oh yea he is the guy who killed Azog... except he didnt in the movie so why even include him.

No clue why they did this. They should have let Dain kill Azog like in the book and made the main bad guy be Azog's son Bolg who could have then led the orc's in the battle of the 5 armies just like in the book... Makes no #%&*$# sense... none what so ever... #%&*$# Peter Jackson.

And that is not even the worst part. The worst part is the constant belittlement of Bilbo. They stole his glory time and time again in the movie. Then in order to make him seem a better character they manufactured more glory that didnt happen in the book. Makes no sense. Just do it like the book and you dont have to make up your own #%&*$# that isnt very good and makes no sense.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH MY CHILDHOOD IS RUINED

Also, the movies are ok action movies if you dont care about the books.

I never read the books, admittedly. My only exposure to this had been the 1970s cartoons.

But without the books, the movies are still getting old. I saw Blade Runner last night at a local theatre- a film I've seen a dozen times, but the first time I've seen it on the big screen, and it was still more fun than the last Hobbit movie.

They definitely stretched a lot out of one book, or timeline. I'm ok with the story changes I guess, but the problem is that none of the characters really stand out as enjoyable or heroic. Even Legolas. In the book, the dwarves were even fairly cowardly, which I understand they couldn't portray here after having done LOTR, but even trying to present them as heroic they're just not very likable. It really is odd how such an eventful and fun story has somehow become somewhat dull. Even in the first one with the Frodo timeline was forced and didn't feel right. I liked the idea, but it wasn't pulled off well.
I'd still like to see this in the theater, but might have to go by myself. My kids couldn't care less about it and I'm pretty sure my wife feels the same. LOL

I went last Saturday with my family.
Note a huge fan my self wife and kids are though.
I did enjoy the movie the battle scenes were pretty good
but not up to the standard of lord of the rings, IMO

"The Hobbit" trilogy is IMO Peter Jackson's "Star Wars Episodes I-III".

Would have preferred Dam Busters,kids and i weren't interested in Hobbity stuff anyway although LoTR was ok. I preferred the version i watched in school when we read the books.

LOL! yes you got that right.
if the films aren't long enough there is always the extended edition on DVD/Bluray

Hated the first Hobbit film, second one was slightly better, not seen the third one yet. My son liked the 3rd film said it was better than the first two.

With the exception of a few scenes like the endless barrel chase in the river sequence, I liked the first two Hobbit films quite a bit.

I get the impression that many of you here were expecting the Hobbit films to be on the same level of quality as the LOTR films?

I had them down as the Ewoks movies compared to Star Wars

I didn't have much expectation- I didn't really know what it was going to be like, of course we all have hope to see good movies. And there is the fact that there is something that will inevitably drawn comparisons- the first films.

But I also believe a good director can make a good film out of almost any story- even if one were to successfully argue that LOTR is inherently deeper because of better material to work with: better characters and plots and so forth, a good director can still overcome that. A very good script in principle can be ruined by lackluster execution, likewise, even a story that seems on paper to do not much happening can be a classic. Case in point: the near acclaim that Reservoir Dogs got, which is mostly a lot of dialogue and not a lot of action, notwithstanding one or two scenes, what drew audiences and critics to it was the sense of tension that it conveyed, but by and large it's just a couple of guys talking in a warehouse recounting what went wrong. Great movie, though.

I knew it wouldn't be as epic, but I did have high expectations.

I have to disagree with Mechanus on the issue of the characters. The dwarves simply weren't as interesting or compelling compared to the characters in Fellowship. It was difficult for me to know who was who even with their rhyming names. After a while the dwarves were just one big indistinguishable blob.

That's how it turned out, that's correct. But Peter Jackson could have screwed up the LOTR characters and made them just as lame. That's the point I am making. I totally agree that the dwarves in this film don't do anything for me, they actually remind me more of humans and take away any sense of the fact that they are supposed to be dwarves with any of their own memorable personalities. But it didn't have to be that way, that's how it turned out. What if Jackson FUBARed LOTR, and having learned his lesson, did better this time around?

okay someone 'splayn to me. WTF GANDALF ?

Blade, in the time of The Hobbit, Gandalf was considered something of a crank with a Sauron hobbyhorse pet topic. He was the Gray, and one of the few wizards without portfolio....mostly because nobody wanted to deal with his paranoia about Sauron, whom had been destroyed.

Rastagast figured only slightly in the book and was just another wizard like Gandalf, out of the political circles.

Galadriel is a dark and powerful Elf Queen who has her own agenda in which none of the subject matter of any of the books figures in. She is just above it all, and everyone is pretty happy about it. Sort of like Tom Bombadil, who was powerful enough to put on the ring and not have it effect him at all...but decided to just hang out with his hippy chick wife communing with nature and singing tra-la-la-la-la.

Gandalf was pretty weak in The Hobbit and during the Fellowship. It's not until he died and leveled up to White Wizard and usurped Saruman as head of the council that he got his super mojo powers.

Actually in the book (have not seen the third movie) Gandolf didnt know about the ring until between the hobbit and the LOTR. He knew about the ring but never knew Bilbo found a magic invisibility ring. Bilbo did tell the dwarves about it right before they were captured by the elves in Mirkwood but by then Gandalf was gone and didnt return until the siege right before the battle of the five armies. Gandalf first get's his suspicions about the ring at the end of the hobbit but doesnt know for sure about the ring until the beginning of LOTR.

Also Gandalf wasnt just a wizard he was a Maia (demigod) sent to Arda to fight Sauron. Sauron was a fallen Maia. When Arda first came to be these demigods were sent down to help the various races survive. They were specifically forbidden to claim power for themselves though. So when Sauron had the rings created his broke their number one rule which is why Gandalf was sent to stop him and given the red ring (one of the three elven rings.) But again, Gandalf cant fight Sauron directly because that would bring power to himself which is why he runs all over the place shepherding the various people.

Galadriel was just an Elf though she did have one of the three elf rings. At the time of the books though the elf's magic was beginning to fade and they were making plans to leave across the ocean to the west and die out. The elf rings were the only set of the rings that were not corrupted by Sauron so there was a lot of fear in the elves that taking part again would corrupt their rings and their race and prevent them from traveling to the west. This is why the elves for the most part just flat refuse to help during LOTRs.

Tom Bombadil was more powerful than Sauron but refused to get involved in any way. There is somewhat of a mystery surrounding him because he doesnt fit into any of the mythology of the series nor was his character ever expounded upon.

Also you have to remember that the movies make no sense at all. Things that happened in the movies didnt happen in the books and some of them dont fit with the mythology of the books either. The script writers didnt think a lot of this #%&*$# through nor did they consult with any people intricately familiar with the books. They just did things because it looked cool and because they could.

The Orcs are not hurt by light. They just dont like it (over sensitive eyes).

Like these movies thought some scenes are overstreched and boring.
..sure that cannot compare with LOTR and weird thing, IMO, is that the special effects are not as good, and even from a lower quality , than in the LOTR trilogy.

All I can say about the first film was that the 48fps HD 3D gave me a headache which didn't do anything to improve my thoughts about the film.

I found the first two overlong, juvenile on presentation, and somewhat liberal with the story as others here have mentioned.
But if box-office returns produce enough revenue for Jackson to fund the 'Dambusters' projected film, I'll be happy to pay my money and sit through the third part in the cinema