Actually I was rather impressed with the images. Some of them were rather fuzzy, but I thought they conveyed a lot of what would be necessary to create LOTR for the screen.

: I mean is it just bad quality pituresor what?? u can see the Nazgūl face for goodness sake!

I would think that this will be taken care of in editing. These are not finished product pictures. The trailer was a lot more revealing since it was edited for commercial/consumer use.

And the wooly hair on the hobbits feet.. get real.. bald legs with a few tufts of hair on the foot.. i don't think so..

I didn't see any bald legs. I noticed that the hobbits did have pronounced hairy feet, but hobbits are supposed to have hairy feet. As for the legs, that looked more like poor picture quality then anything else.

also what the heck is up with gollum??

He looked pretty good to me as well. Though he was monochrome, but I don't think that's supposed to be the finished product. Again, these images were not meant for a marketing campaign.

and Gimli for tat matter... they look all.. well.. crap..

Gimli looked the best and was actually one of the most encouraging things I saw (probably gonna catch flack for that one). I really can't think of a better actor to portray Gimli then John Rhys-Davies, despite the odd characterization he had in Indiana Jones: Last Crusade.

: i hope the movie isn't a dud.. nothing worse then something really good getting a crap movie made of it...

Have you seen the LOTR Ralph Bakshi version? I own this version, and actually enjoy it . . . but it was highly critiqued as being mediocre at best and a complete waste of time at worst. But being a Tolkien enthusiast, I like to see it from time to time, and when this little diddy hits the streets I will be in line ready to shell out my twenty bucks for ticket, small popcorn and a bottle of water, good, bad, or mediocre!

-RR