Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Lord of the Rings Movies Entertainment

New Hobbit Trailer Debuts 130

Posted by Soulskill from the hairy-feet-abound dept.
New submitter madmarcel tips news that a new trailer for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey has been released. "The new piece (seen above) is about the same length -- 2 1/2 minutes -- as the December trailer. But it cuts to the chase more quickly, leaving out the Frodo voiceover that sets up the Lord of the Rings follow-up. Instead we get the quick voiceover explanation -- 'the dwarves are determined to reclaim their homeland' -- before we meet up with Martin Freeman's Bilbo Baggins and set off. There's a slightly less self-serious tone to the proceedings this time around, though questers do 'enter the mountain' and play important games of riddles."

This discussion has been archived.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

New Hobbit Trailer Debuts More

New Hobbit Trailer Debuts

Comments Filter:

  • hobbits (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    make me shave my feet in shame

  • Meh? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    No Smaug. Less spiders than the Dark Forest. Lame.

  • Awesome (Score:5, Informative)

    by OldSport ( 2677879 ) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @03:49PM (#41391435)

    I'll be bringing my 4-year-old daughter to that one -- time to start the indoctrination into geekery...

    (My first memory was seeing Return of the Jedi in the theater at age 4.)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by nege ( 263655 )

      Mine was seeing Dune in 1984 at age 4! :)

      • I have friends who hate the 1984 Dune with a passion, but I always had a soft spot for it. Yes, it had cheesy parts. But it also had David Lynch freakery, Patrick Stewart and Sting as the prancing bad boy ("I will kill you!"). Just thinking about it makes me laugh these decades later.

        • Re:Awesome (Score:4, Insightful)

          by i_ate_god ( 899684 ) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @06:43PM (#41393583)

          Lynch's Dune is not close to the book in terms of story, but it is very accurate in terms of over all feeling I find.

          • Re:Awesome (Score:5, Interesting)

            by funwithBSD ( 245349 ) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @08:13PM (#41394363)

            FWIW, Frank Herbert seem to be ok with the results:

                    I get asked a specific question a lot of times, if the settings, the scenes that I saw in David’s film match my original imagination, the things I projected in my imagination. I must tell you that some of them do, precisely. Some of them don’t, and some of them are better. Which is what you would expect of artists such as David and Tony Masters. I’m delighted with that! Why not take it and improve on it visually? As far as I’m concerned the film is a visual feast.

          • Lynch's Dune is not close to the book in terms of story, but it is very accurate in terms of over all feeling I find.

            Note that the original dune was heavily cuted and edited before screening in theaters. The original dune had runtime of 137 minutes. There exists extended edition (with 177 minutes of runtime) featuring outtakes, additional footage, test close-up shots of certain actors, and even fabricated (i.e. "cheated") footage, which is closer story-wise to the Herberts original book.

            Personaly i think that even the original dune managed to capture the atmosphere of Herberts universe quite well. Maybe it was incomprehen

      • Mine was seeing Dune in 1984 at age 4! :)

        Mine was seeing 2001: A Space Odyssey at age age 7!

        I win! :D

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      If you get the chance, read The Hobbit to her in the time before the movie is released. Give her the chance to use her own imagination before seeing the film.

      I read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings to my son somewhere between the ages of 5 and 10. I can't remember exactly. It took weeks over the summer holidays. But it was a very memorable experience. Four is probably too young for TLotR, but probably fine for The Hobbit.

      Years later, when the films came out, my son understood why I was raging so mu

      • I boycotted the Gorilla movie because of their dubious decision to excise the main plot point from the LotR. I can never forgive that. I have magnanimously lifted the boycott, however, in appreciation of Jackson's support of the effort to free the West Memphis Three. I hope he doesn't fuck up this time..

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Avatar8 ( 748465 )
          I wish I had boycotted KK. It made the 1976 version look like a classical masterpiece.

          Not only was the major plot point of the Scouring lost, but the change to Faramir being tempted by the ring tells me that Jackson, Boyens and Walsh did not GET Tolkien's writing or understand how the ring worked.

          While I'll be cringing and bitching about changes to "The Hobbit," I'm sure I'll still enjoy the scenery and journey of these movies. I just don't understand the gall of thinking you can improve on what many cons

        • Mod up! I'm so glad to finally hear that I'm not the only one who feels that the Scouring oif the Shire was pretty much the entire point of the whole trilogy, and leaving it out was a crime beyond imagining. Yeah, I guess it brings down the Hollywood-happy-ending thing a bit. Gods forbid we should have to grow or think or not always have everything end perfectly. Chopping the last part off completely ruined all character growth that was in the books and, iof you ask me, the most personal and intimate pa

          • I took a class once on reading, and ever since I compulsively look for the plot point. (Ditto Film School.)
            Omniscience aside, Tolkein's primary P.O.V. was of the Hobbits, and the theme was the little guy who wanted to stay home and garden being thrust into the world of ambitious Biggers*, and doing whatever they had to do in order to return to their own lives. Kinda like the Draft. One of the foremost subplots also was that adventure and war were not very fun or glorious for some folks.
            *Reference from Bored

    • Kaaaaaaaaaaaaahnn!

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      "I'll be bringing my 4-year-old daughter to that one -- time to start the indoctrination into geekery..."

      Try actually reading her the book like a real parent would.

      • Hahaha... amazing how bringing my daughter to see her first movie in the theater has somehow been twisted into me being a shitty parent. Gotta love the Internet.

        Just FYI, I've read more books with my daughter in the last six months than you've probably read in your entire life.

    • I've been lucky enough to have seen all the Star Wars movies when they were first released in the theater...

      Get off my lawn!

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by CQDX ( 2720013 )
      Mine was seeing 2001 at age 4. Still trying to figure that one out.

      • Youngster. I saw it at 7. I still vividly remember the Ape/Bone/Tool scene melting into the Space Station on the big screen. Loved it. Yeah, pretty much the entire theater was saying WTF during the last 10 minutes. When you figure it out, let me know.

    • One of mine is seeing Empire Strikes Back in a theater at 5!

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dissy ( 172727 )

        I was 4 when my parents took me to all of Bladerunner, Wrath of Kahn, Tron. I remember seeing Wargames too but think that was the next year.
        '82 was one of the best years for scifi movies, and I made it just in time!

    • You waited until she was 4? I've done LOTR marathons with my little girl since before she could speak.

    • You're lucky. My dad took me to see The Exorcist when it came out. Made quite the impression on a 5-year-old's imagination...

  • Direct link to download HD version (quicktime)
    http://trailers.apple.com/movies/wb/thehobbit1/hobbit-tlr1-3mm4_h1080p.mov [apple.com]

    Also, Hobbiton is 37km's that way from my house [[points]] but of course when I went to visit they hadn't started on the Hobbit yet.
    We got a discount and a tour of the farm with the owner. Best quote: "You wouldn't pay NZ$60 to go and see some bloke's paddock"

  • Trailers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Scutter ( 18425 ) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @03:54PM (#41391491) Journal

    Am I the only one who prefers to wait for the finished product rather than watch it in two-minute disjointed chunks over the course of the next three months?

    I quit watching trailers entirely for this reason and because they almost always give away the plot (or the best jokes, or the twist) anymore. Tron: Legacy, for example (admittedly, not exactly a thespianic masterpiece), completely ruined the entire plot start to finish for me with a four-word sentence in the trailer. It gave it away completely.

      • Sturgeon's Law applies to all mainstream films.
      • The trailer, by necessity, includes scenes from the (relatively)non-crap 10% of the film.
      • Ergo, crappy trailer==very crappy film.

    • The only time I ever watch trailers anymore is in theaters. Trailers always seem to make a movie look extraordinarily epic, no matter how bad the movie ends up being, so it's an entertaining several minutes before the movie starts.

      • I saw an epic Pulp Fiction trailer at a screening of Reservoir Dogs. I got a strong impression that it was a movie worth seeing. BTW it was about ten minutes long, and played after the feature.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fm6 ( 162816 )

      What, you think the purpose of a movie is telling a story? No it's about spectacle and cheering on the good guys. Fans (short for "fanatics") can't get enough of that. They don't mind trailers that give away too much, just as the movie itself will get a lot of repeat business.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by DrFalkyn ( 102068 )

      Am I the only one who prefers to wait for the finished product rather than watch it in two-minute disjointed chunks over the course of the next three months?

      I quit watching trailers entirely for this reason and because they almost always give away the plot (or the best jokes, or the twist) anymore. Tron: Legacy, for example (admittedly, not exactly a thespianic masterpiece), completely ruined the entire plot start to finish for me with a four-word sentence in the trailer. It gave it away completely.

      I'm with you. It would be a travesty if the studios give away the plot to The Hobbit

  • What's a Nimoy? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @03:56PM (#41391525)

    I didn't see any songs by Leonard Nimoy, how good could it be?

    http://youtu.be/XC73PHdQX04 [youtu.be]

  • I wonder what all manner of interesting thing will walk, and walk, and walk in this installment?

  • I'm going to be seeing this in the theater at least once. I just wish Jackson didn't feel the need to split the movie in half. I'm curious where the dividing point will be.
    • It's getting split into three movies actually.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I think what they've done is split the Hobbit into 2 parts. The third will be about events between the Hobbit and LotR and based on notes left by Tolkien that never made it into any of the books. Really it's still 2 movies, but they've decided to make a third that picks up sometime after that Hobbit (or possibly chronicles events that aren't discussed in great depth in the novel) and probably ends sometime before FotR begins.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Scutter ( 18425 )

      Luckily, he's changed his mind about splitting it in half. Now it's a trilogy [screenrant.com] instead.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Misagon ( 1135 )

      It is worse. It is split in three parts. A lot of things from the Lord of the Rings appendices that happen during the same time as The Hobbit are being put into the movies.

      Personally, I am considering waiting for the inevitable 2015 fan-edit that follows just the story of the book "The Hobbit". I don't know who will make it, but probably several people will try doing it.

      Seeing it at home will probably also be the only way that I am going to be able to see it in a good threatre, in high resolution in 2D. Yes

    • I got bad news for ya. He's splitting it into THREE parts. I'm guessing the first movie will cut off right before they get to Mirkwood, the second will have them going from Mirkwood to when Smaug is first shown, then the third will deal with Smaug and all the other grandiose things that happen after that.

  • 48 FPS (Score:3)

    by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @04:10PM (#41391703) Journal

    Is there a list of theatres that will be showing this in 48FPS?

  • Any idea what the small distorted square shape is on the left 1/3 of the screen at 38 seconds? Looks like some unfinished effects work. It moves along with one of the dwarves (dwarfs?).

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by iceaxe ( 18903 )

      ...dwarves (dwarfs?).

      Dwarves. See the Author's Note at the beginning of a copy of the book. (Like the one on my e-reader, right here in my pocket...)

  • From the end of the trailer, "Home is now behind you. The world is ahead."

    That is very similar to the lyric of the song that Pippin sang to Denethor during Jackson's rendition of "Return of the King."

    • It is indeed reminiscent of the theme of "The Road Goes Ever On", part of which Bilbo recites at the end of The Hobbit and of which many verses are sung throughout The Lord of the Rings.

  • I thought Peter Jackson did a great job on the Lord Of The Rings except, the movies were too long, too drawn-out with too many endings. I imagine his reason for making one book (The Hobbit) into three movies is for box office revenue. So, its depressing to think that we probably won't actually see Smaug until the third movie.

    • Re:nice but (Score:5, Insightful)

      by iceaxe ( 18903 ) on Wednesday September 19, 2012 @04:49PM (#41392365) Journal

      While I understand the impatience to get to dessert...

      A full length novel is generally much, much longer in terms of plot than the average two to three hour film screenplay. A typical screenplay is more equivalent to a short story or novelette. While The Hobbit is by no means a lengthy tome, it is certainly more than a short story, and when you add in the additional material Jackson is introducing (White Council, Dol Guldur, Radagast, etc.) it would be impossible to cram into a commercially viable screenplay.

      I was fine with two films, and I'm fine with three. I'm happy to have the story fleshed out with more context, and I'm mostly fine with having Jackson and company extrapolate and add things, recognizing that film and text are different media with different strengths and weaknesses and techniques for storytelling. My "fine" stops with altering things that Tolkien actually wrote, as happened in spots in the Lord of the Rings movies. Nonetheless, I expect I'll enjoy these just as thoroughly as the last three. I doubt Jackson will pull a Lucas on us... let us hope.

      And let it be said, I am willing to pay for my enjoyment, repeatedly, and do not begrudge the commercial nature of the venture, provided the art is not compromised thereby.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Avatar8 ( 748465 )
        This is the key point of the debates between the movies and books.
        C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien wrote in similar styles which is no wonder since they attended college together and were friends. They both "skip over" the details of long journeys and battles. The final battle in "Lion, Witch and Wardrobe" only took up two pages in the book. Likewise the battle of five armies only took up a few pages until Bilbo was knocked unconscious and the battle was summarized for him upon his awakening.

        Today's writers

  • character out of my favorite books. I wonder if these movies tend to be less appealing to people that actually read the books. Or is it just me.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bartron ( 772079 )
      So don't watch them and read the books instead. Personally I couldn't give a flying f if the movie(s) deviate from the words Tolkien wrote or if stuff is added that wasn't in the book (but is in the LOTR appendices). Movies are like a magic show. If you watch David Copperfield and do nothing but complain how such-and-such is not physically possible then GTFO. Same with movies. As long as the move has pace and the story is compelling then sit back and enjoy the show. Treat it as an interpretation of the st

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PJ6 ( 1151747 )

        So don't watch them and read the books instead. Personally I couldn't give a flying f if the movie(s) deviate from the words Tolkien wrote or if stuff is added that wasn't in the book (but is in the LOTR appendices). Movies are like a magic show. If you watch David Copperfield and do nothing but complain how such-and-such is not physically possible then GTFO. Same with movies. As long as the move has pace and the story is compelling then sit back and enjoy the show. Treat it as an interpretation of the story rather than some attempt to visually display the book verbatim and I'm sure you will enjoy it.

        With that argument you could invalidate practically any cinematic criticism regardless of merit.

        My problem with the adaptation has nothing to do with deviation per se, but how it was done. Not that you ("GTFO") care, of course.

  • Did anyone else catch Tom ,mutha f*cking, Bombadil?

    Sure he had to doctor the story to fit him in, but I'm pretty excited about it.

  • I'm looking forward to The Hobbit, but instead of licking the screen at every trailer, picture, snippet or press interview I'm going to ignore avoid looking at any of it, walk into the cinema when it finally comes out and be pleasantly surprised.
  • I mostly like Jackson's Ring series & this looks to be 'bout as good, but I've never gotten a consistent feel for the "actual" size of a Hobbit from the films.

    Anyone else?
    • Not sure if your question is really how tall are they, but in the lore of Lord of the Rings, they were called halflings because they were exactly half the size of the men who named them. If my memory is correct, it was the Numenor, who were tall (about 6' 5" to 7" average). That puts Hobbits at about 3' 2.5" to 3.5'.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Avatar8 ( 748465 )
      That's been one of my gripes. Jackson has the hobbits the same height as the dwarves. Hobbits range from 3 to 4 feet, the tallest having been 4' 6". Dwarves range between 4 and 5. While you may have some seeing eye to eye around the 4 foot height, there should be a visible difference between Bilbo and the other dwarves.

      It's mostly when they do the close scenes with characters side by side. On action or distant scenes where they substituted actual little people, those were much more accurate.

  • This has cash in written all over it.

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Close