Hobbit Film Trailer Posted Online 257
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.
QuickTime! (Score:4, Informative)
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. :)
DOH! (Score:5, Informative)
Oops! Wrong URL in my previous reply. I meant to say:
http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/thehobbit/ [apple.com]
Tip to downoad: wget -U "QuickTime/7.6.2" http://trailers.apple.com/movies/wb/thehobbit1/thehobbit-tlr1_h1080p.mov [apple.com] to download the 173 MOV file to play it locally in your QT compatible player. :)
Re: (Score:3)
In FF, use the User Agent Switcher [mozilla.org] add-on to set the user agent to "QuickTime/7.6.2", or go to about:config and create a general.useragent.override String with a value of "QuickTime/7.6.2". Once the user agent is set, right-click and save link as [apple.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Lots of trailers recently. I hope Prometheus is good too since I love Aliens (just the first two movies though) series.
RTFA or WTFT (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
haha, I would totally put the video after the credits run.
Re:bad info (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, if they pull another Scouring of the Shire / Tom Bombadil fiasco messing the book up, I'm going to be upset.
Then I would prepare to be upset.
Many things work very well in books and very poorly in movies, and subplots unrelated to the main plot are one of them. The encounter with Tom Bombadil, the scouring of the Shire, and the encounter with the barrow-wights were all correctly left out of the movie adaptation. While you and I may wish to see these tales portrayed on screen, doing so would detract from the pacing of a movie. Pacing and tempo are much more delicate in a movie compared to a novel. I would much rather see a great movie whose story was imperfectly adapted than a perfect translation which would doubtless be all but unwatchable. I argue that the Hobbit will similarly either significantly diverge from the novel or be a supremely awful movie.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Cutting scenes and merging characters is one thing, making arbitrary changes in the material you've kept is another. And even worse is wasting the removal of canon by adding stupid new material.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, if they pull another Scouring of the Shire / Tom Bombadil fiasco messing the book up, I'm going to be upset.
Then I would prepare to be upset.
Many things work very well in books and very poorly in movies, and subplots unrelated to the main plot are one of them. The encounter with Tom Bombadil, the scouring of the Shire, and the encounter with the barrow-wights were all correctly left out of the movie adaptation. While you and I may wish to see these tales portrayed on screen, doing so would detract from the pacing of a movie. Pacing and tempo are much more delicate in a movie compared to a novel. I would much rather see a great movie whose story was imperfectly adapted than a perfect translation which would doubtless be all but unwatchable. I argue that the Hobbit will similarly either significantly diverge from the novel or be a supremely awful movie.
Then they should have had someone else kill the Lord of the Nazgul, then. Having Merry the Hobbit kill the 2nd most powerful evil being in the movie by stabbing him in the knee just came out non-nonsensical without the barrow-wight backstory.
Re:bad info (Score:4, Interesting)
Then they should have had someone else kill the Lord of the Nazgul, then.
Er. In the movie Merry's poke distracts him for a moment. In the novels Merry's poke with the barrow blade breaks the spell that made him nearly invincible.
But in both cases it was Eowyn that actually killed him, and fulfilled the prophecy that "no man" could kill him by being a woman. (with or without the aid of a hobbit) The Witch king was taken aback that he was facing a woman in both the novel and movie as well.
It was enough for the internal consistency of the movie that a woman had to slay the Witch King.
Re:bad info (Score:5, Funny)
I used to be a powerful evil being, but then I took a dagger to the knee...
Re:bad info (Score:5, Insightful)
Many things work very well in books and very poorly in movies, and subplots unrelated to the main plot are one of them. The encounter with Tom Bombadil, the scouring of the Shire, and the encounter with the barrow-wights were all correctly left out of the movie adaptation.
I'll even go one further: The film should have ended after Frodo and Sam were saved. It was already a long movie (200 minutes), and it would have been a nice point to end it. I remember sitting in the theater feeling somewhat exhausted and exasperated as the movie dragged on after the climax.
What's funny is that the Wikipedia article says, "The ending is streamlined so as not to include the Scouring of the Shire, which was always seen by the screenwriters as anti-climactic.[9]" I agree, but they didn't go far enough!
Re:bad info (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't see how it could be regarded as "anti-climactic" when it's a nice plot twist (surprise: everything isn't fine when they get back home to the Shire), and I've always thought The Scouring of the Shire is pretty much the entire point of the LOTR. Yes, it may seem like the destruction of the One Ring was the main point of the books, but if that were the case then it would be an ordinary quest. What made the ending of the LOTR books different was not only the completion of a great quest, but the hobbits returned to the Shire completely transformed by it. Thus, because they had grown so much (figuratively :-)), they handled the "trouble" in their little part of the world on their own. Even Gandalf stayed out of it, presumably because he knew they could handle it. Tolkien's books are some kind of allegory on how a comfortable life can be threatened by events far away from your home, and that if you are complacent about it, that trouble will eventually arrive on your happy little village doorstep. Heck, given recent history you'd think they would go out of their way to include that message. Weirdly, some of that ominous plot thread was shown in the movie (the foreshadowing in Galadriel's mirror), but then the logical conclusion to it never happened at the end.
I can accept all the other changes, but I just don't buy the claim that the Scouring of the Shire couldn't have been done effectively or that it wouldn't be worth doing it. Yeah, the movie was really long, but they spent loads of time with all sorts of melodramatic stuff that wasn't necessary or that could have been shortened.
Re:bad info (Score:5, Insightful)
You put it well. (Score:3)
I have a friend who also has your sentiment, but still refuses to see the LOTR movies, despite being a fan of JRRs books as well as being a fan of movies.
His reasoning for not seeing these LOTR movies is that because they are decent he is is afraid that they will over shadow his imagination and memories of how he envisioned the story.
He is cognizant of the divergence of the movies from the book, but as a movie buff they do not bother him. And yes, there other novels that have been published as movies that h
Re:bad info (Score:5, Insightful)
You are right about TB, barrow-wight.probably. The Scouring? Removing it destroys the whole fucking point of the books.
No no, lets keep telling people 'wars happen over THERE, never at home.'
Re: (Score:2)
The Rankin/Bass one, while nice, cut approximately 2/3 of the original story out.
How old were you when you saw that cartoon? I thought it was terrible, but I've never been a fan of that particular cartoon house. Having grown up on the old Warner Brothers cartoons, Rankin/Bass just looks cheesy and cheap. ALL their cartoons.
Did you see the Ralph Bakshi version of LOTR? Not bad, but they left out WAY too much... and were planning a sequel but the original movie bombed.
Re: (Score:2)
Ugh. The LOTR cartoon by Ralph Bashki was a complete abomination. He didn't animate that movie. He had actors play the scenes and then he traced over their images. Some of the laziest, sloppiest work I've ever seen from an artist. Bashki was also responsible for the abortion that was Cool World which I think was the last time anyone bothered giving that idiot a budget.
I would say that Bashki probably set the LOTR franchise back a couple of decades in popularity with just how horrible of a movie it was
Re: (Score:2)
It sucked for other reasons than the use of rotoscoping.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
whoa whoa whoa. Don't be band mouthing cool world.'
Hos 'Hobbit' OTOH, uhg. horrid...
Where the is a whip, there's a way!
Bah, humbug. (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Your point's a valid one, but... (Score:2)
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.
Re:Bah, humbug. (Score:5, Funny)
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)
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)
Re:Bah, humbug. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Honestly, dude, if I could, I would. (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Maybe you should read about Tolkien,the man? (Score:2)
"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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Who am I? I'm a guy on the Internet, and my words should be given exactly as much weight as they have consequence.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Oh you mean like having Liv Tyler save the Hobbits, just because she was a semi-famous actress? I never even bothered to watch the last two movies.
Except for when Eowyn killed the Nazgul lord, which is the coolest part of any book ever.
It didn't actually happen like that in the book. Merry had discovered an ancient sword in the barrow-wight's lair (and even completely left out of the movies). It was one of the few weapons that could actually harm the Witch-king, and when Merry stabbed him in the back of the knee with it, it damaged him so badly that anyone could have finished him off.
Re: (Score:2)
It didn't actually happen like that in the book. Merry had discovered an ancient sword in the barrow-wight's lair (and even completely left out of the movies). It was one of the few weapons that could actually harm the Witch-king, and when Merry stabbed him in the back of the knee with it, it damaged him so badly that anyone could have finished him off.
You are completely correct, and even more completely wrong.
We're geeks, so we like to worry about which magic item could work against which foe. Tolkien cared about people. The important part of that (amazingly awesome) scene in the book was that all of the mighty warrior "men" (well, those left standing) fled in fear from the Witch-king. Only the lowly hobbit and the woman had the heart to face the Witch-king, and not just face but strike at him. What killed the Witch-king? Logically, a magic sword.
Re: (Score:2)
The movie did just fine. The "woman not a man" thing resonates more these days than in Tolkien's time, and the hobbit's critical role is a bit diminished, but overall it nicely captures what (I think) Tolkien wanted. Just like the myths which Tolkien was emulating, the magic weapon wasn't the important bit, but the hand/heart who wielded the weapon.
Many of the changes in the movie bother me, but overall it condensed and translated an insanely complicated plot down to something which people who are not Tolkien scholars can enjoy.
That's exactly the dilemma. Do we focus more on the details of the book or the point of the story? Which is, or in this case, would have been more important to the author? I think that the author who told the same story about defeating the evil orks in Isengard with their wheels and gears, wouldn't care so much about the specific sword as he would about the people who wielded it.
Re: (Score:2)
What killed the Witch-king? Logically, a magic sword. Thematically, heart and courage.
The movie did just fine.
In that case, why not just make a whole 'nuther movie about "heart and courage" rather than fucking up a story that's already considered a classic just because you feel like it? Hell, why not set it all in present day, remove all magic, and change everyone's name?
Honestly, I don't care either way -- I haven't seen the movies and barely remember the books. But your argument is ridiculous. A movie version of LoTR should be LoTR; not some other story about "heart and courage."
Re: (Score:2)
Merry had discovered an ancient sword in the barrow-wight's lair (and even completely left out of the movies). It was one of the few weapons that could actually harm the Witch-king, and when Merry stabbed him in the back of the knee with it, it damaged him so badly that anyone could have finished him off.
Well, not by the hand of man...
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't mind Arwen's expanded part, because it fixed two problems that any adaptation has to face:
Frankly, telescoping Glorfindel's and Arwen's roles into the character of Arwen was a perfectly sensible decision in my view, almost genius.
However, the Elves at Helms Deep, and Faramir as Boromir 2.0 was stretching adaptation beyond its limits, IMO.
Mart
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
Watch A Scanner Darkly. Despite Keanu Reeves, it's actually a pretty good adaptation.
Re:Bah, humbug. (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Chicken Little was the worst book to film adaptation EVER.
I demanded my money back.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Bah, humbug. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Have you ever seen a single movie that followed the book more than rudimentarily?
Starship Troopers?
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
" 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 I liked... (Score:2)
I have to agree (Score:2)
The basic premise, IMHO, was not that little people are better than big, famous ones, or that big, famous people can do great things, but that little, ordinary people can do great things even when great people are doing great things all around them. The hobbits were not the only ones doing essential and great actions. In terms of both character development and world altering actio
Cartoon (Score:2)
Oh Mayans. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
This movie is a complete ripoff of LOTR (Score:4, Funny)
...I mean seriously! The actors even look the same and they are using some of the same stuff!
(http://i.imgur.com/e9WwU.jpg)
Not unexpected... (Score:2, Funny)
The film, due December 14, 2012, is subtitled "An Unexpected Journey"
Odd, so was the book.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Wow.... (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
"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
Damn spoilers (Score:2)
They gave away the ending
Excited, but... (Score:2)
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.
Bored of the Rings (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:3)
Afraid of hoax (Score:2)
At first i was afraid it was a hoax, because 2 scenes.were clearly from LotR. But i was appeased later....
It is all about the rythm (Score:2)
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.
Songs... (Score:3)
> 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Flame War commence!
I realize that trailers don't always give you the tone of the movies they advertise, but this feels too somber and foreboding. The Hobbit should be a rollick.
Re:Let the (Score:5, Insightful)
To me, The Hobbit left more of an impression on me than Lord of the Rings. Maybe because I was younger when I read it, but it always came off more mystical to me. The story isn't all over the place either. As epic as Lord of the Rings was, The Hobbit was more tidy and wasn't too fixated on trying to explain the whole of Middle Earth and it's languages, but more a story that happened in Middle Earth.
I hope Peter Jackson translates this well, and tells the story for it's own sake. Yes, there are tie ins to the Lord of the Rings, but I hope he doesn't go overboard trying to explain them all, and gives us a film that focuses more on the journey of Bilbo Baggins. The ring was just a magic ring that made anyone who wore it invisible. Gollum was just a cave dweller of a creature, and wasn't revealed to be twisted by power. I know it's hard to keep these things at that when the trilogy was filmed first, but I think to really tell the story properly, these things need to be kept in their places in context of the story... I'm crossing my fingers this happens, because if they get it right, this could be one of my all time favourites.
Re: (Score:3)
To me, The Hobbit left more of an impression on me than Lord of the Rings. Maybe because I was younger when I read it, but it always came off more mystical to me.
I was an adult when I read them, and although I don't think The Hobbit was more mystical, it was IMO a better book.
Yes, there are tie ins to the Lord of the Rings
No tie ins, rather LOTR was a sequel to The Hobbit.
Re: (Score:2)
(I haven't watched the trailer.)
Well, Frodo is somehow in the movie.. so apparently they did add a bunch of ... stuff...
Re: (Score:2)
What? I thought Frodo was born after the hobbit took place.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
From the trailer, it's basically Bilbo telling him "hey, so let me tell you about this really cool adventure I had back in the day".
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I expected it would be, as bookend pieces.. I still think it's an unnecessary addition.
Re: (Score:3)
So let me get this straight... In the whole of the Shire, absolutely NO ONE knew about this except for Bilbo? No folklore? Old newspaper articles? Campfire stories? No old surviving hobbits in the local pub mouthing off?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm concerned about the songs. I skipped over them after I read the hobbit the first time.
Frankly, though, I'm more concerned about the casting of Freeman: I've a nagging concern that I'll spend a significant portion of the movie looking at his "confused" face. I wonder if the casting people realise there are more than a half-dozen British actors out there...
Re:Songs (Score:5, Funny)
As long as they include the Leonord Nimoy song, [youtube.com] perhaps as accompaniment to a blooper reel during the credits, I'll be happy.
Re:Songs (Score:4, Insightful)
OMG, I want to rip my eyes out and my ears off! I really could have gone the rest of my life without having been exposed to THAT!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they ahve been making book into movie for there entire history. A LOT of really good stuff comes out of Hollywood.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn straight! Would you believe they named the second LOTR film "The Two Towers"? Obviously pandered to the patriotic American public after 9/11 but it was damn insensitive. There was even a petition to change the name before it came out, but Hollywood never listens. Anything to make a buck!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which I left.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is a song about an orgy. Just so you know.
Should have been 'Ramble On'.