The trailer for The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is here! | Hobbit Movie News and Rumors | TheOneRing.net?
Not sure how many of you are looking forward to the movie, but I think the trailer is awesome.
Printable View
The trailer for The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is here! | Hobbit Movie News and Rumors | TheOneRing.net?
Not sure how many of you are looking forward to the movie, but I think the trailer is awesome.
It looks cool, though even as a huge fan of Jackson's versions, my Tolkien vein may bulge a little bit through these Legolas scenes.
Awww, Legolas has a cruuush.
His dad is one freaky dude.
I saw this on my phone earlier. I was waiting to go to work so I plugged it into my car stereo when Iw as watching it and OMG HOW AWESOME. SO EXCITED.
My goal is to lose enough weight by Dec 13th (if not then, then my birthday next year July 18th when the next movie comes out) to look hot in this dress for the release.
http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/011...ande.jpg?16467
Well, the parts of it that were actually The Hobbit were good. The rest just had me going "WTF?!" with how much they didn't match the book.
I love Legolas, I really do. But damn, he's getting a ton of scenes for never having been in The Hobbit. Also, Tauriel. Ugh. WHY?Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychotic
I hope one day someone makes a children's movie out of The Hobbit, that would make me really happy. But I did think this trailer was one of the best that's come out so far from The Hobbit trilogy. Martin Freeman is just so god damn perfect as Bilbo.
He doesn't belong here, but as long as his story flows with the film in a positive and entertaining way then I don't care any more. Tolkien was working on a more updated mature version of the Hobbit before he died, so maybe he had something like this in mind. I know as many people that are upset that he's ing these movies, there are also plenty of people that are happy he's in them too. Might aswell get use to it, because he's likely to be in BOFA next year too. At any rate, the trailer is epic, and I don't wanna wait 71 more days!
Yeah. There was no need to make three movies from The Hobbit and they're trying to pad it out, and it's just a bit awkward. The White Council was fine, because it was in the books and explains where Gandalf went whenever he disappeared, though I just liked him being an enigma in the book. This Tauriel business smacks of trying to shoehorn in a love story. Aragorn/Arwen worked well, especially because Jackson dropped the ridiculous idea to have her show up at Helm's Deep. This is just... Peter, son, what the smurf are you doing?Quote:
Originally Posted by MirielI love Legolas, I really do. But damn, he's getting a ton of scenes for never having been in The Hobbit. Also, Tauriel. Ugh. WHY?Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychotic
I love this world and I want to see more of it but.... ahh, I don't know. I want to like it. I truly do. I really, really want to like it.
I plan on going into the movies expecting the worst and being surprised and entertained despite that, just as I did the first film.
I nerdgasmed several times watching this.
I had no problems with Arwen's extended role in the Trilogy. It made sense and really, did anyone miss Glorfindel? Nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychotic
But I have no idea why they felt the need to put in any kind of romantic element for The Hobbit. And why Kate?! I hate Kate! Go away Kate, no one wants you!
Did anyone watch the first installment of the Hobbit and think, "man, you know what's really missing here? A love story."
I think PJ is taking The Hobbit into a really weird direction and it makes me sad. Not saying that the first movie wasn't good. I was definitely entertained and parts of it were perfect. But The Hobbit is such a wondrous and magical story to me. And PJ seems more intent on making it a action flick. :( I need more whimsy!
See, It's been so long for me since I read the hobbit that I don't remember all the details so I guess it isn't bugging me as much about all the extra stuff they've added in. I really enjoyed the first hobbit. I saw it twice in theaters! SO I'm sure the next will be good too.
Plus I'm obligated to like it since the 3rd comes out on my birthday. I just have to like it.
The stuff with Dale looks very exciting, as well as the Bilbo/Smaug scenes. I still cringe when I see the scenes with the Elves though. Not sure why there's some Legolas love side-story thrown in there. Seems unnecessary.
I hope that they at least try to balance things out a bit in this version and allow scenes time to breathe. One of the flaws in the first Hobbit film was its pacing in the second half which was way too frenetic at times. I liked the first act's slower pace (even though many critics over here hated the "slow" pace of that segment, which I find baffling because I felt it was just perfect pacing-wise; I guess people are getting too impatient these days).
Many of the changes made to LotR films worked although I know many who wouldn't have minded seeing Glorfindel, Tom Bombadil, or the Scouring of the Shire on film. Some characters were fleshed out even if they differed a bit from how they appeared in books (and sometimes those changes were for the better, IMHO).
The Hobbit, however, faces some interesting problems, legal-wise. Apparently the Tolkien Estate prevents film makers from using materials from certain Tolkien writings which could've been used to give "legitimate" extensions to the storyline, and now Jackson and co have to skirt around the topic to not get their asses sued, and that's a shame.
I'm not sure what to think of extending Azog stuff yet; so far I've been indifferent to him although some scenes were made surprisingly epic like the confrontation at the end of the first film which went pretty much over the top. The White Council and Necromancer stuff is interesting, and I wonder how they'll make it play out as they keep adding stuff into it.
What I worry about is that the score will end up butchered again like what happened in the first film. Back when I wrote about the first film, I noticed something was off about the music but couldn't quite put my finger on it until it turned out how there were some problems in post production and bits of existing score were replaced from music from LotR, which is regrettable but happens in these fast film editing days. I hope Desolation of Smaug will have an untampered score so we really get to hear what Howard Shore has in mind for the narrative structure of these films; no one wants the tragedy of Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith to occur again music-wise (how those two scores were butchered in their respective films as well).
Just like Azog, I'm indifferent to Tauriel for now, but I expect things will pick up, and both of them will end up people I'll actually care about. Time will tell, I guess, but I don't expect to be disappointed that much. The first film, despite its many flaws, was still enjoyable to watch, and I look forward to entering Middle-Earth once more and see the dragon. If only we could see Glaurung on screen too someday... :)
This is exactly how I feel. He is making trout complicated. I will echo what I wrote when the first installment came out - The Hobbit is simple. It is a simple story in a complex world. It is not an action story, it is not a love story, it is not complicated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miriel
I understand that Jackson loves the Tolkien realm and how big of a fan of it he is. Sometimes, though, sleeping dogs should be left lying. We don't need every bit of the Tolkien mythology put on screen. Let's have a little bit of mystery and leave the people wanting more instead of it erupting in this overwhelming volcano that pulls us in every direction.
As far as a cinematic sense goes, the extra story fluff is all neat but in general, I dislike all of the extra Silmarillion stuff being added. It's too much.
Well, Tolkien was in the process of rewriting the Hobbit before he died. I have a feeling it would have been a more detailed novel that helped bridge the path to LoTR anyhow. I really enjoy what PJ has done and am looking forward to more, so it doesn't really bother me if there are adjustments in the films, as long as they remain entertaining.
None of this is from the Silmarillion. If it was, I probably wouldn't be so :stare: about it. I don't think they have the licence to use stuff from that, which is why Gandalf couldn't name Alatar and Pallando as his wizard bros.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shorty
Oh, I swear I read that some of the story was from it! I haven't read the Silmarillion. In any case, it's a bunch of the Tolkien mythos that is not in The Hobbit.
If I'm correct, Turiel is a completely made up character by PJ.
Yeah, she is entirely PJ and Fran Walsh's creation. Although the trailer shows a possible love interest between her and Legolas, PJ and Evangeline still swear that the two characters don't have a love story, but her love story is with someone else. Elvenking Thranduil? Bard? Or maybe even Bombur!!http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__.../ed/Bombur.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Jinx
Some of it was. The origin of Thorin's "Oakenshield" moniker, for example, was Silmarillion material (or was it Lost Tales? Either way, it was from Tolkien's work).Quote:
Originally Posted by PsychoticNone of this is from the Silmarillion. If it was, I probably wouldn't be so :stare: about it. I don't think they have the licence to use stuff from that, which is why Gandalf couldn't name Alatar and Pallando as his wizard bros.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shorty
But, yeah, none of the extra stuff in the trailer was.
So my friend described her husband's cupcakes as sounding like Smaug's Benedict Cumberbatch voice.
And I really want some freaking cupcakes after watching the trailer. While the additions to the story are pretty annoying, I am still just awed by how these movies are perfectly cast. I am looking forward to more regal Richard Armitage and heartful, hopeful Martin Freeman.
Most of all I'm hoping for no more fat jokes about Bombur in this one. I cringed at every one in the last one.
Yeah, given how many of those are actually in the book, I don't see that happening. Bombur pretty much existed for comic relief. It was, after all, a kids book, and much less serious than Lord of the Rings. Granted, they may come across better in print, but I don't see those going away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantz
Oh I don't have an issue with Tolkien's mythology. But inserting Legolas, inserting Tauriel, those are Peter Jackson's inventions, not Tolkien. Apparently, the invention of Tauriel was so The Hobbit wouldn't be such a sausage fest. He is adding in bits from the White Council, which kinda makes sense because that actually *was* what Gandalf was up to during the timeline of The Hobbit, only that information is in the appendices of Lord of the Rings and not in The Hobbit itself. But it does fit in with what was happening at the time. It's just that all the stuff with Sauron is so heavy and dark and you don't really need any of it in the Hobbit. The biggest foes in The Hobbit should just be Smaug and the orcs. No need for all the Sauron bits. That's all handled in LotR and shoulda been left there. Maybe with just a few hints and whispers of it as foreshadowing, but nothing more.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShortyI understand that Jackson loves the Tolkien realm and how big of a fan of it he is. Sometimes, though, sleeping dogs should be left lying. We don't need every bit of the Tolkien mythology put on screen. Let's have a little bit of mystery and leave the people wanting more instead of it erupting in this overwhelming volcano that pulls us in every direction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miriel
As far as a cinematic sense goes, the extra story fluff is all neat but in general, I dislike all of the extra Silmarillion stuff being added. It's too much.
Nobody but the Tolkien estate has the rights to The Silmarillion. Peter Jackson and Company can't touch it. Which is a shame because The Silmarillion is badass and would make for an amazing mini series. Or can you imagine the story of Luthien and Beren as a ballet? Omg it would be so lovely. :love:
I plan on introducing my kids to The Hobbit when they're old enough to read. But the movie versions I don't think they'd be interested in until much much later. It just doesn't have the same vibe as the book.
Sure, but Peter Jackson cut a lot of book material out for the LotR movies to make it work better on the screen, and for a modern audience. Although adding material seems to be more of a concern than removing it this time around and he did include a lot of them in the first movie, so it's more of an unlikely wish than an actual hope.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkybladeYeah, given how many of those are actually in the book, I don't see that happening. Bombur pretty much existed for comic relief. It was, after all, a kids book, and much less serious than Lord of the Rings. Granted, they may come across better in print, but I don't see those going away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantz
My daughter is 4 (5 next month), and she loves the Hobbit cartoon/live action and book. LoTR...not so much. Yeah, she's a little young, but I'm also getting her into Final Fantasy. If she ever gets in trouble I'll get her to do the boring game grinding as punishment, lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miriel