Purists will hate this.....

If PJ sticks exactly to the book it will be a rather childish musical type scenario.

Having said that I loved the way that the Hobbits sang in their couple of numbers in the LOTR's.  Perhaps this rather pubish drinking song method could be used for the songs.  Also Tra La La Lally sounds silly when read, however if Howard Shore uses a fabulous choir, like he did in the Rivendel introduction scene in TFOTR with grand multi octave corralling it could be fabulous.

LOOK AT THIS!!

http://the-hobbit-movie.com/2011/04/14/first-video-from-the-set-of-the-hobbit/

It turns out that PJ is going to be doing a behind-the-scenes blog every step of the way through the Hobbit, and this is the first one. 

Wowwowowowowowowowowwwwww, that was cool thanks Fornad. The misus was giving me weird looks as I was jumping up and down on the seat like a kid. Everything looks new but so familiar, so good that the same team are working on these films, I was glad to see John Howe there and I assume Alan Lee is there as well. As soon as I heard the flute play that familiar Hobbiton tune I started bubbling over, cannot wait!!! 

Oh yes... this is going to be awesome!!....guess it is time to "nail my colours to the mast"...ok, I guess I am a liberal...now, purists, please dont hate me, I love & respect you,,,,I guess i just see these films, not as a literal transliteration of the book, but as another pathway into Middle Earth....come on now purists, i bet you will be in the Cinema come Dec 2012..ha, ha...lol....(my friend walked out of The Two Towers when the elves arrived at Helms Deep....and has refused to see ROTK...sigh, what can you do ?....I still love him though...)

Well there does seem to be some new storylines for Rivendell  and I am expecting a call up for Hugo Weaving to cloak himself with the mantel of Elrond again.

Without Elrond Rivendell is nothing so come on don't keep us in suspense! The journey into Rivendell occurs earlier in the book and we should have heard something by now, 

You are right  to an extent, Galin, i guess it depends how it is done...I found LOTR overall to be respectful to the spirit of the books...ok, I had a problem with some scenes...I respected their reasons for changing things; there were some scenes i think they just messed up.....it is those little iconic moments, isnt it....like Gandalf confronting the Witch King at the gates of Minas Tirith...(why, oh why did they not do that ?)

Anyway, I could go on, but....respect your point of view, Galin

The video itself was very interesting, and now I'm looking even more forward to the release of The Hobbit, damn it!

Hobbits have larger feet in proportion to their bodies than humans do, I must admit that it does look a bit naff, I think it would look far better if they just did as you suggested

I don't believe a film can be completely faithful to the content of a book, especially one as voluminous as LOTR, but it should be possible to remain faithful to the spirit of the books. PJ's movies, however, were neither in my book.

Interestingly, past Sunday the first episode of the HBO-series " A game of thrones", based on the book(s) from George RR Martin aired, and apparently according to all fans it was incredibly faithful in both spirit & content. Indeed, the first episode apparently covered the first hundred (!) pages of the 600+ paged book (not to mention, GRRM himself cooperated with the makers of the series).

Seeing that Frank Herbert's sci-fi saga Dune also received a proper treatment in a miniseries, I'm hoping one day LOTR (or the Silmarillion) will receive the same attention...

It seems the first book is going to span ten episodes, and just today the second season (ten episodes spanning book two: A clash of Kings) has been confirmed. If it does not get cancelled after two seasons (typical occurence with HBO) this may be the best fantasy series ever to appear on screen.

Speaking of Earthsea, the author indeed loathed the TV series. A pity, since that series certainly also deserves a faithful adaptation. Earthsea is a wholly unique and highly imaginative fantasy setting that borrows absolutely nothing from what Tolkien wrote, until all others out there.

About the large feet could this be a close up shot of hobbits feet or do they belong to Trolls?

@ Vir: Since you began to talk about it, let me continue a little bit.

I just watched the first episode of Game of Thrones, and I loved it.

And it indeed covered a good piece of the actual book and had a very good atmosphere and sense of originality.

I'm pretty sure that even George Martin's satisfied to the results of this series, and I'm also sure that this will be the most interesting fantasy series ever (after Hercules: The Legendary Journeys of course ^^).

Fornad will need to update his listed of confirmed actors for The Hobbit movie as Sir Ian Holm was ticked in by none other than Sir Peter.

Well extraordinary feet is one thing... unusually large feet compared to their bodies is another, concerning which I can find no certain indication of, either in Tolkien's own drawings of Bilbo, or in his descriptions of Hobbits in general.

The Lord of the Rings notes (my emphasis) that: Hobbits seldom wore shoes, since their feet had tough leathery soles and were clad in a thick curling hair, and thus the only craft little practiced among them was shoe-making.

The Harfoots were said to be beardless and bootless, with neat and nimble hands and feet, while the Stoors were broader, heavier in build -- and their feet and hands were larger (I'm pretty sure it's also noted that the Stoors sometimes wore boots for some reason, and in Tolkien's drawings of Bilbo he is sometimes wearing boots). 

So the Stoors have large-er feet and hands, meaning larger than the Harfoots, but their bodies are described as broader and heavier in build as well, so I see no great reason to think that even the Stoors had notably large hands and feet in proportion to their own bodies.

And I could be wrong, but I don't think any film-hobbits wore large rubber hands

OK so I just read the start of the Hobbit and there is indeed no mention of large feet as I remember. Honestly, you guys take this far too seriously. it's just a story, something to distract me momentarily from the real world, you know, working 13 hrs days, raising your kids right and paying the bills......crikey get a grip.... 

Who do you think is taking this far too seriously? It was just a question...

... that turned into a polite discussion, which is what these forums are for

I just checked Wikipedia out of curiosity...

Wikipedia (currently) writes: 'Hobbits and derivative Halflings are often depicted with large feet for their size, perhaps to visually emphasize their unusualness. This is especially prominent in the influential illustrations by the Brothers Hildebrandt and the large prosthetic feet used in The Lord of the Rings film Trilogy. Tolkien does not specifically give size as a generic hobbit trait, but does make it the distinctive trait of Proudfoot hobbit family. '''

I suppose that the filmmakers, having already included large feet, would do so now out of continuity in any case -- but again, just curious. 

Gollum is interesting: originally he wasn't a Hobbit in my opinion. In the first edition, the narrator notes about Gollum: 'I don't know where he came from or who or what he was.'

And John Rateliff (The History of The Hobbit) adds: '... there's no reason not to think he speaks for the author here and take him at his word. (...) but in either case, all the details of his description argue against his being of Hobbit-kin. Unlike Bilbo, the Hobbit, Gollum is 'dark as darkness', with (...) large webbed feet (p. 158) that flap when he walks (unlike the silent Hobbit, cf. p. 161), and 'long eyes', huge and pale, that not only protrude 'like telescopes' but actually project light.'

But anyway, of course Tolkien made Gollum into a Hobbit, and so whatever description the revised editions included about Gollum had to be dealt with.

The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit are regarded as classics examples of well written literature geared toward children and the young at heart.

When all has being said and done about bringing a written masterpiece to the screen you can guarantee that one can never duplicate an original or produce a faithful adaptation no matter how modern the technique might be.

If anyone thinks this is possible then you would be looking at five films for LOTR and three for The Hobbit.

Well I'm not going to say that it's not a possibility, it could or may well happen in the not too distant future for paragraph 4 of your post to be realised. 

A  film that is totally a hobbit -ecentric tale, I would love to see that happen.  This would mean taking ideas from Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit and hobbits found elsewhere in Tolkien's works.