Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Lord of the Rings Movies Entertainment

Hobbit Film Trailer Posted Online 257

Posted by samzenpus
from the chip-the-glasses-crack-the-plates dept.
bonch writes "The trailer for the film adaptation of The Hobbit by Peter Jackson has been posted online by ComingSoon. The film, due December 14, 2012, is subtitled "An Unexpected Journey" and will be followed by a second film in 2013 that will tie the story with the Lord of the Rings trilogy." I'm glad to hear that they've kept the Misty Mountains song and I'll be greatly disappointed if an updated version of "Funny Little Things" or "Down, Down to Goblin Town" doesn't make the cut also.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hobbit Film Trailer Posted Online

Comments Filter:
  • QuickTime! (Score:4, Informative)

    by antdude (79039) on Wednesday December 21, 2011 @03:49PM (#38452132) Homepage Journal

    http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/thehobbit/ [apple.com]

    Tip to downoad: wget -U "QuickTime/7.6.2" http://trailers.apple.com/movies/wb/thedarkknightrises/darkknightrises-tlr1_h1080p.mov [apple.com] to download the 148 MOV file to play in your QT compatible player. :)

  • RTFA or WTFT (Score:5, Informative)

    by Missing.Matter (1845576) on Wednesday December 21, 2011 @03:52PM (#38452156)

    The film, due December 14, 2012, is subtitled There And Back Again

    It's subtitled An Unexpected Journey. There and Back Again is the next one

  • bad info (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 21, 2011 @03:52PM (#38452166)

    The film is subtitled "An Unexpected Journey". The second part in 2013 will be subtitled "There and Back Again". It is just the story of The Hobbit split into two movies, the idea of a second "bridge" movie to connect it with LOTR was abandoned years ago.

    Other than that, the story is accurate.

    • by geekoid (135745)

      haha, I would totally put the video after the credits run.

  • Bah, humbug. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Slartibartfast (3395)

    I'm sorry. I tried. I really did. I *wanted* to like the LoTR movies -- and I certainly didn't expect them to keep everything that was in the books -- I mean, we're talking 1500+ pages! But *changing* storyline, that, I had issues with. Complete timelines, and storylines, were altered, for no effect that I could see. As someone who reads LoTR every 18 months or so, it was Just Wrong to see a series crafted as carefully as Tolkien did, twisted to meet whatever it was that Jackson was attempting to do.

    • Re:Bah, humbug. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 21, 2011 @04:01PM (#38452260)

      I like LOTR a lot too, but reading it every 18 months? Branch out some. There's lots of good stuff out there my friend.

      • by iceaxe (18903)

        Yep, there's The Hobbit (of course) and The Silmarillion, and The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, and The Children of Hurin, and The Unfinished Tales, and The History of Middle Earth (12 volumes).

        That should keep you busy for a longer cycle than 18 months before starting over.

        • I kind of feel like I'm cheating when I read stuff compiled/edited/tweaked by Christopher. I hold no opinion for or against him, but, darn it, I read Tolkien to read *JRR* Tolkien. Though there is plenty of other actual JRR stuff -- but let's face it, while he was a fun writer, his pinnacle was Hobbit/LoTR. And that's what I dig into.

    • by SteveFoerster (136027) <{steve} {at} {hiresteve.com}> on Wednesday December 21, 2011 @04:04PM (#38452294) Homepage

      Great -- one fewer person in front of me in line for the opening day 12:01am showing of The Hobbit, then.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by grimmjeeper (2301232)

      Self proclaimed "purists" always fascinate me. I find it amazing that truly passionate followers of a particular story can discuss so much of someone else's work in such detail. And so many times, they can have legendary arguments over how some stretches of the work should be interpreted. It's almost always guaranteed that when a story is converted from book to film, all of the self proclaimed purists universally dismiss it as tripe. They all have their own individual reasons, but it's rare to see any o

      • Re:Bah, humbug. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ILongForDarkness (1134931) on Wednesday December 21, 2011 @04:14PM (#38452416)
        Not to mention the purists tend to focus on the book as published, ie after the editors of the book decided to chop out 100 pages for length, and change some words, change where chapters end etc. So they are being pure to what already is an interpretation of what the author originally intended. Perhaps the editor did a good job and made the book better, perhaps not but getting all cult like protective of an artist's vision when what was published usually isn't the artist's vision is kind of silly to me.
        • Re:Bah, humbug. (Score:4, Interesting)

          by grimmjeeper (2301232) on Wednesday December 21, 2011 @05:21PM (#38453240)

          Hell, Tolkien spent decades changing things in his creation of Middle Earth. I wonder how many arbitrary choices were made without any real thought just to satisfy a publishing deadline. I wonder how many purists consider those to be cannon inviolable. And on the other side of that coin, I wonder how many people completely gloss over changes to parts that Tolkien spent decades getting "just right".

          I just don't get why people get so hung up in the detail that they can't see the whole picture. But they do and they're happy to tell anyone who will listen.

          In the end, the books were amazing. The movies were good too. They flowed reasonably well given the medium in which they were presented. Getting hung up on the details just seems petty to me. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Either you're going to like it or you're not.

      • For the Hell of it, let's look at the beginning of the true changes -- Bree. Bree was supposed to be viewed as a welcoming community where "big people" and "little people" got along together, with comfort and self respect. Three significant things happened there: we were introduced to Bill/Bill Ferny, the Nazgul struck, and we met Strider.

        The movie? Bree is a place full of mean-spirited big people; Butterbur is surly; Strider not only doesn't have his birthright sword, but now can't even be identified by

        • I get why you don't like the movie. Changes that many don't feel are important still bother you because you feel that they're important. To me, the town of Bree was just a spot where they hooked up with Strider and escaped from the Nazgul. Does it really matter that he doesn't have his sword or Gandalf's letter? To me and many others, no. To you and many others, yes.

          For those who are really passionate about a story and have intimate knowledge of it, any translation to film is going to be a let down. I

        • "The most critical reader of all, myself, now finds many defects, minor and major , but being fortunately under no obligation either to review the book or to write it again, he will pass over these in silence, except one that has been noted by others: the book is too short."

          So stop putting the man on some sort of pedestal where he corrected every thing and put out a perfect book.

        • by jjohnson (62583)

          There's something wrong with you that you can't enjoy the movies on their own terms. You acknowledge in your first post that the films simply cannot be a literal adaptation of the books, then backslide into complaining about changes when you've already granted that changes were necessary.

          You know what'd be healthy? Being able to separate the books and the movie and yourself from each other. Seriously, you're just way too into the books if you can't enjoy the movies on their own terms (which is how every

      • by forkfail (228161)

        It's kind of funny, though, how so many directors think that they can tell a story better than the author who wrote the original. Especially when the reason the story was chosen to be made into a movie was that it had stood the test of time, and was so well loved by so many.

        I'm not talking about condensing portions, or omitting scenes for time. I'm talking about major plot deviations that seem to serve no purpose at all. For example, having the Elves show up en masse at Helms Deep. No reason for the cha

      • by KhabaLox (1906148)

        According to Gary Oldman, John Le Carré told the filmmakers of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy that the book is the book and the film is the film. If you make a shitty film, my book will still be good.

        I'm a big fan of PK Dick's short stories, though I wouldn't consider myself a Purist. I really enjoyed Total Recall and The Adjustment Bureau. Minority Report was OK to fair. Imposters was bad, and Screamers I never saw, though it's source, Second Variety is one of my favorites (simply because it was the "c

        • by Pope (17780)

          "Screamers" was pretty decent as far as PKD movies go, though the FX look a bit dated (as early CGI is wont to do). Worth a rental, IMO. "Adjustment Bureau" captured the paranoia vibe of a PKD story very well.

        • Watch A Scanner Darkly. Despite Keanu Reeves, it's actually a pretty good adaptation.

      • Re:Bah, humbug. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Mitreya (579078) <mitreya@nOSPAm.gmail.com> on Wednesday December 21, 2011 @06:00PM (#38453774)
        Self proclaimed "purists" always fascinate me.

        There is purists and there is purists. I feel that there were a large number of changes that were made -- some of them were quite justified (skipping Tom Bombadil, leaving out Scouring of Shire, replacing Glorfindel with Arwen/Liv Tylor to simplify the plot). However, there was a shocking number of things that were added for no reason whatsoever (the stupid elephant battle, Faramir capturing and dragging along Frodo for a while and then releasing him for no new reasons, Aragorn dragged off by a Warg, Aragorn swaying to Eowyn instead of Arwen, etc).
        I, personally, am upset by the latter changes. I understand cutting out pieces of a long book to make a good movie. I understand simplifying the story by getting rid of some characters (since the list of characters in Tolkien books goes on and on). However, if the movie is well over 3 hours, why do they feel the need to add plotlines that were completely made up, involved out-of-character behavior and were generally pointless?

      • Chicken Little was the worst book to film adaptation EVER.

        I demanded my money back.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      But your still going to watch it right?
    • Re:Bah, humbug. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by crow (16139) on Wednesday December 21, 2011 @04:10PM (#38452370) Homepage Journal

      The books were written by an eyewitness many years after the events. The movie script is based on records from other eyewitnesses, so it's not surprising that they would remember events differently (or even correct mistakes from the books). Of course, the books are one source for the movie script, but by no means the only one.

    • by alexo (9335)

      Next time, consider the movie to be very loosely based on the events in the book and watch it for it's own sake.

    • Re:Bah, humbug. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mcgrew (92797) * on Wednesday December 21, 2011 @04:42PM (#38452786) Homepage Journal

      Have you ever seen a single movie that followed the book more than rudimentarily? I don't think one exists. Look at True Grit -- two movies from the same book, mostly following the book's dialogue, both lacking elements and inserting elements that weren't in the book (for example, in the book Rooster only had one eye, but he didn't wear an eye patch).

      Or worse, look at I, Robot. A hot Susan Calvin? WTF? It kinda sorta a little bit copied (kinda) one of the stories in the book ("Little Lost Robot"), but GEES.

      It had probably been five or more years since I'd read the books, but I was happy. No, I didn't like "Nobody tosses a dwarf!" and missed Tom Bombadil, and thought it was insane that Gimli and the elf went with Aragorn into the cave, and that the book left what happened there to the imagination, but mostly the movies looked like the images I had in my head while reading the book.

      It was closer to its book than any other I've read and seen. I was happy with it.

      • by CommieLib (468883)

        Have you ever seen a single movie that followed the book more than rudimentarily?

        Starship Troopers?

        • by BlortHorc (305555)

          Have you ever seen a single movie that followed the book more than rudimentarily?

          Starship Troopers?

          No, he meant followed the book accurately, not followed in a rudimentary fashion.

          Seriously, in the middle of re-reading it now, it is very little like the namesake movie(s).

        • by Phrogman (80473)

          The film version is nothing like the book version, on multiple levels. When I saw the movie version I hated it. Only by viewing it as a completely separate story can I really enjoy it in and of itself.
          Heinlein was quite serious, Verhoeven made a violent comedy.

    • Yeah, there were changes I can understand (like cutting out Tom Bombadil... disappointing, but it is a long side trip that essentially amounts to nothing). Then there's bullshit like changing Faramir from "I wouldn't take it if I found it by the side of the road" to "So you have this magic ring? I'm kidnapping you and taking it!"
    • by idontgno (624372)

      As someone who reads LoTR every 18 months or so, it was Just Wrong to see a series crafted as carefully as Tolkien did

      Alas, you do your Tolkien-geek cred no service when you call LoTR a "series". Any true student of Tolkien knows that Lord of The Rings is, in fact, a single book split by the original publisher for convenience of publication.

    • by geekoid (135745)

      " As someone who reads LoTR every 18 months or so"... ,,, you opinion on the matter is worthless.

      You are clearly OCD, and so it can never be watchable to you.

      You did NOT want to like the movies at all.

    • The only change to the books that I liked was making Aragorn a humble and reluctant king (movie) as opposed to a pompous, arrogant douche (books). That was much needed IMO. The other stuff (like Elves in places they shouldn't be...) was a bit harder to take.
  • Like others, reading the books brought me into a new world when I was a kid. Unfortunately, though, the original cartoon version [imdb.com] of this scared the hell out of me when I was a kid. I wonder if my kids will be scarred from this version?
  • Oh Mayans. (Score:5, Funny)

    by hawks5999 (588198) on Wednesday December 21, 2011 @04:00PM (#38452256)
    Please be wrong.
    • The good news is that this the first part will release before the apocalypse! Unless the didn't account for very large values of 2.
    • by vadim_t (324782)

      There's one thing I still don't get:

      Why the heck does anybody care about the Mayan calendar?

      I mean, the US is AFAIK overwhelmingly made up of a mix of abrahamic religions. To me it seems that to make the mayan calendar seriously, you'd have to subscribe to their religion, and how many believers in it can there be?

    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      No, they're right, the world will end next December -- but only as I know it. I'm eligible to retire then. Goodbye cubicle hell, hello retirement heaven!

      Believe me, my retirement won't affect The Hobbit. Hell, I don't even work in the industry.

  • by thatbloke83 (1529851) on Wednesday December 21, 2011 @04:12PM (#38452390)

    ...I mean seriously! The actors even look the same and they are using some of the same stuff!

    (http://i.imgur.com/e9WwU.jpg)

  • by mcgrew (92797) *

    The film, due December 14, 2012, is subtitled "An Unexpected Journey"

    Odd, so was the book.

    • by demonbug (309515)

      The film, due December 14, 2012, is subtitled "An Unexpected Journey"

      Odd, so was the book.

      No, the book is subtitled, "There and Back Again, A Hobbit's Journey (or maybe Tale)". The first chapter is titled, "An Unexpected Party," though.

      • by knarfling (735361)
        "An Unexpected Journey" was one of the working titles that Bilbo considered as he was writing all his notes.
  • haven't had goosebumps like that during any trailer since the Fellowship one. Just wow.

    May be they should have started with the Hobbit, do the learning steps there, and make an even better LOTR?

    The perfection of the Trilogy (and yes there is only one Triology and its about a ring, not light sabers) ruined cinema for me anyway. There will be nothing like that nine hour special, ever. Ever.

    BTW, I had goosebumps when Vader got his helmet. It's just not a trilogy anymore. And there are situations where it's jus

    • Re:Wow.... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Pope (17780) on Wednesday December 21, 2011 @05:26PM (#38453302)

      Nope, "Star Wars" is still a trilogy, 1977, 1980, 1983.

      "The Matrix" on the other hand was a great standalone film. I'm glad they didn't ruin the mystique with any unnecessary sequels.

      • by Mogster (459037)

        "The Matrix" on the other hand was a great standalone film. I'm glad they didn't ruin the mystique with any unnecessary sequels.

        Damn I wish I had mod points right now...
        But I can't decide whether the mod would be +1 Funny or +1 Insightful

  • They gave away the ending

  • I really enjoyed the trailer, and I'm very much looking forward to the film. I'll catch a midnight showing, no doubt.

    However....

    Don't some of the dwarves look a bit, well, silly? Is it the make-up? Is it just their design? I'm uncertain. But something doesn't quite fit right with some of their looks.

  • I'm waiting for the movie based on the book from the Harvard Lampoon.
    Dildo and Frito Bugger, Legolam, Tim Benzedrine, Goddam, Sorhed, oh what great characters, working their way through Twodor, Fordor, and the Tiny X-Shaped Forest.
    Anyone remember the chant of the Stealthy Green Toupees?

    • by sconeu (64226)

      Don't forget the Nozdrul on their farting pigs, and the Riders on their sheep!


      Tim, Tim, Benzedine!
      Hash! Boo! Valvoline!
      First, second, neutral, park,
      Hie thee hence, thou leafy narc!

    • by meglon (1001833)
      You just want to see Legolam doing unmentionable things to the small furry woodland creatures.... admit it.
  • At first i was afraid it was a hoax, because 2 scenes.were clearly from LotR. But i was appeased later....

  • Ðis has actually a better chance of succeß ðan the ‘Ðe Lord of ðe Rings’ sequel — a shorter original story makes it more probable ðat ðe movie will not totally lose ðe rym which is eßential to enjoying ðe Middle Earth saga.

  • by roc97007 (608802) on Wednesday December 21, 2011 @06:33PM (#38454128) Journal

    > I'm glad to hear that they've kept the Misty Mountains song and I'll be greatly disappointed if an updated version of "Funny Little Things" or "Down, Down to Goblin Town" doesn't make the cut also.

    Not me. The Misty Mountains song was given a great treatment -- it sounds wistful and eerie. I'm told the Break Plates song will be in there also. But seriously, do we really need The Hobbit to be a musical? There already is one [imdb.com] and it was horrible.

10 to the 12th power microphones = 1 Megaphone

Working...