Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Hobbit Film Trailer Posted Online

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the chip-the-glasses-crack-the-plates dept.

Lord of the Rings 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.

cancel ×

257 comments

Let the (-1, Offtopic)

dmacleod808 (729707) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452100)

Flame War commence!

Re:Let the (1)

chispito (1870390) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452332)

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 (5, Insightful)

sheehaje (240093) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452406)

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:Let the (1)

thomasw_lrd (1203850) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452564)

All depends on who he gets to play the main charactes. If he gets a semi-hot actress, she will have all kinds of parts that didn't happen.

IMO, The Hobbit is the perfect book to make into a movie. No convoluted plot lines, and it's not too long that you have to edit too much out. I'm even fine if he leaves out the battle of the five armies, just don't add a bunch a shit that never happened.

Re:Let the (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452782)

(I haven't watched the trailer.)

Well, Frodo is somehow in the movie.. so apparently they did add a bunch of ... stuff...

Re:Let the (1)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 2 years ago | (#38453042)

What? I thought Frodo was born after the hobbit took place.

Re:Let the (2, Informative)

moogied (1175879) | more than 2 years ago | (#38453200)

It did. Frodo is in the prologue of the movie when Bilbo starts to tell him the story of what happened.. then it fades into the story.

Re:Let the (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38453086)

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:Let the (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | more than 2 years ago | (#38453142)

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".

That's what I expected it would be, as bookend pieces.. I still think it's an unnecessary addition.

Re:Let the (1)

Nationless (2123580) | more than 2 years ago | (#38453172)

Well maybe you should watch the trailer, it's only 2:32.

It features old Bilbo telling his story to Frodo before cutting to young Bilbo for what I assume is the rest of the movie.

It does not introduce Frodo as a companion or anything that breaks the story.

Re:Let the (2)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#38453058)

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:Let the (1)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452446)

Okay lets start with a good cross /. topic gripefest(tech and nerd columns): This is quicker hype than the next iDevice gets. One could say prematurely uploaded all over the place.

QuickTime! (3, Informative)

antdude (79039) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452132)

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! (4, Informative)

antdude (79039) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452172)

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:DOH! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38452200)

They're both good trailers anyway :)

Muchas gracias.

Re:DOH! (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452386)

Agreed. Lots of trailers recently. I hope Prometheus is good too since I love Aliens (just the first two movies though) series.

Re:DOH! (0)

frisket (149522) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452864)

I particularly liked the shot of the inside of Bag End with the dehumidifier (or perhaps an A/C unit or even a vacuum cleaner ;-) Perhaps this is the droid we've been looking for...

Re:DOH! (2)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452282)

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] .

RTFA or WTFT (4, Informative)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | more than 2 years ago | (#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

Songs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38452162)

Based on the Film Blogs from PJ and crew, they are def trying to keep the original songs, if anyone else is concerned about that...

Re:Songs (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452340)

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 (5, Funny)

KhabaLox (1906148) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452462)

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.

bad info (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:bad info (0)

Moryath (553296) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452268)

That's a good thing, though. The Rankin/Bass one, while nice, cut approximately 2/3 of the original story out.

Of course, if they pull another Scouring of the Shire / Tom Bombadil fiasco messing the book up, I'm going to be upset.

Re:bad info (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38452478)

Of course, if they pull another Scouring of the Shire / Tom Bombadil fiasco messing the book up, I'm going to be upset.

This didn't bother me so much. What really bothered me was when they had Sam Gamgee not wear the One ring when rescuing Frodo. They even did the scenes where he wore the ring but decided to not have him wear it in the movie.

Re:bad info (5, Insightful)

Bacon Bits (926911) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452510)

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:bad info (2, Insightful)

An Ominous Coward (13324) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452810)

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:bad info (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452872)

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 (3, Interesting)

vux984 (928602) | more than 2 years ago | (#38453320)

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 (4, Funny)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 2 years ago | (#38453356)

I used to be a powerful evil being, but then I took a dagger to the knee...

Re:bad info (5, Insightful)

Raenex (947668) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452908)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38452970)

Okay, so I agree it follows if you cut out the barrow wights, then there's no point to the whole Tom Bombadil part.. (except maybe to introduce the trees)... but, that then makes Merry's successful attack on the witch king seem kind of strange... like, *why* does his sword even hurt it? But then, that wasn't too bad, since Eowyn just sort of stabbed him in the face immediately afterword and was fine...

But removing the Scouring of the Shire really bugged me... instead of a heroic homecoming (remember, the other hobbits didn't care about their previous adventures, only their exploits in the Shire), left it seeming that Merry, Pippin and Sam were all outcasts. Frodo being an outcast (and his taking ill) makes his departure make sense. But the whole thing left me with this sense of depression for the hobbits since they basically came to a place that wasn't really their home anymore, instead of saving their home from the evils of Saruman and integrating themselves back into their society by helping rebuild it...

Re:bad info (5, Insightful)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 2 years ago | (#38453330)

Leaving Tom Bombadil out is understandable, but leaving the scouring of the Shire out was a critical mistake. It is the capstone of the characters' journey, it demonstrates (dramatically) that they are greatly changed by their experiences. It's a crucial part of the story.

Re:bad info (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452870)

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:bad info (1)

SlippyToad (240532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38453464)

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. There's a reason it bombed -- it was nothing but a vanity project anyway. He had zero respect for the material he was handling.

mz (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38452168)

More of the same. Not interested

Its back... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38452186)

My precious... they brought back my precious

Bah, humbug. (2, Interesting)

Slartibartfast (3395) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452212)

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. So. Don't. Care.

And, well, I'll be (pleasantly!) surprised if I don't wind up feeling much the same about The Hobbit.

*sigh*

Re:Bah, humbug. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38452230)

Yay good for you.

Re:Bah, humbug. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:Bah, humbug. (1)

iceaxe (18903) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452354)

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... (1)

Slartibartfast (3395) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452558)

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. (4, Funny)

SteveFoerster (136027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452294)

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

Re:Bah, humbug. (2, Insightful)

grimmjeeper (2301232) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452322)

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 of them approve of the work, no matter how good it may be.

Here's my suggestion. If you really want to see a movie that stays within the bounds you have arbitrarily set on a story written by someone else, why don't you make it yourself.

Re:Bah, humbug. (4, Insightful)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | more than 2 years ago | (#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. (3, Interesting)

grimmjeeper (2301232) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Honestly, dude, if I could, I would. (2)

Slartibartfast (3395) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452464)

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 Gandalf's letter. Lots was modified to suit Jackson's whims. And that was the merest beginning of things altered.

Now, see, for most books, honestly, I don't care all that much, so long as the general feel of the book remains. There are even some where I feel the movie version was significantly superior to the book, itself -- Thank You for Smoking is a perfect example. But Tolkien spent *years* trying to get everything right in LoTR; I admire and respect that, and clearly, many others do, as well, else he wouldn't be considered the father of modern-day fantasy. Who is Jackson to alter -- not just abridge -- his story?

Re:Bah, humbug. (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452486)

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 change, it didn't make any point that would have been made with otherwise omitted scenes, and was simply distracting from the movies.

Re:Bah, humbug. (1)

thomasw_lrd (1203850) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452710)

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.

Re:Bah, humbug. (2)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452984)

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:Bah, humbug. (2)

kqs (1038910) | more than 2 years ago | (#38453284)

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. Thematically, heart and courage.

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.

Re:Bah, humbug. (2)

KhabaLox (1906148) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452548)

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 "cover story" of the first volume of his stories I bought - the one with the little girl with the teddy bear on the cover).

Re:Bah, humbug. (1)

Pope (17780) | more than 2 years ago | (#38453226)

"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:Bah, humbug. (1, Insightful)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452362)

But your still going to watch it right?

Re:Bah, humbug. (5, Interesting)

crow (16139) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452370)

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:Bah, humbug. (1)

haystor (102186) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452524)

+1 pure awesome, made my day.

Re:Bah, humbug. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38452508)

I agree with you. The LOTR films were epic and impressive, but I would only give them a B. I'm okay with understandable plot changes -- in fact, I can't even remember the entire plots of the books, which I read not long before viewing each film, because the books themselves tend to drag on in many places (oops, I'm not supposed to say that) -- but the doses of saccharine Hollywood melodrama and pretentious posturing really bummed me out. Many effects were stunning, particularly the Balrog. Some of the color/contrast effects just looked like a cheap Final Cut or Premiere filter to me and some animations, like the wargs, disappointed me. I especially disliked the 2-dimensionality of the combat (one slice and down goes a large orc in armor) where they could have added the feel of real grit and labor. Instead, what got more attention was the bromance between Frodo and Sam. I like both actors and they're well-cast, but I tired of Frodo's eyes and overemphasized emotions (my Dad saw the first flick with me and actually said out loud in the cinema "Couldn't they have made Frodo a little less bug-eyed?") as well as the redundant "I made a promise and I aim ta keep it, Master Frodo!" spiel. Gollum was also overexposed, with not only monologue but a dialogue. I also like Ian McKellen but Gandalf is clearly described as having a witchy nose in the books. The biggest crime of all was not asking Jim Carrey to star as Tom Bombadil.

As for this new pair of movies, seems obvious to me that they're splitting it and dragging it out to milk the money. I may wait until someone else buys the DVD and borrow it. In other words: MEH!!!

Re:Bah, humbug. (0, Troll)

Raenex (947668) | more than 2 years ago | (#38453008)

Wow, your dad's an annoying dick. Save the comments for after the movie.

Re:Bah, humbug. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38453256)

Agree wholeheartedly.

Re:Bah, humbug. (2)

alexo (9335) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452662)

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. (4, Interesting)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452786)

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:Bah, humbug. (2)

CommieLib (468883) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452866)

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

Starship Troopers?

Re:Bah, humbug. (2)

BlortHorc (305555) | more than 2 years ago | (#38453168)

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:Bah, humbug. (1)

tmarsh86 (896458) | more than 2 years ago | (#38453382)

Surely, you jest. The film and the book are miles apart in many key areas, mainly in that Heinlein was serious and Verhoeven was not.

Re:Bah, humbug. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38452926)

I was fine with the changes in the LOTR story that were deemed necessary for the movies ... except for "The Scouring of the Shire" [wikipedia.org] and everything related to its removal (like Saruman getting killed much earlier). I mean, what the hell was the LOTR about if not for the hobbits to stand up for themselves at the end? After doing such a fantastic job otherwise, what the hell, Jackson? He did a fantastic job, and I expected differences, but what the hell? Why ditch that ONE core part instead of something else?

So, I'm not nearly as negative as you are, and overall I'm impressed with Jackson's LOTR adaptation, but I can also see your point.

I have to agree (1)

knarfling (735361) | more than 2 years ago | (#38453398)

First, I liked the LOTR movies, and I was fine with many of the changes. But Jackson did change the entire premise of the books.

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 actions, many people were involved. The movie concentrated more on Aragorn's actions and his choice to be king. As such, some scenes, like the Arwen and Aragorn discussion in Rivendell were added to the movie to help us see more of Aragorn's character development.

One of the reasons people do not like the fact that "The Scouring of the Shire" was left out was that this scene was the ultimate "we've grown up and can handle problems on our own." The barrow-wights and Tom Bombadill represented their earlier growth and learning that they can grow up even though they still needed help at that time.

One of my minor pet peeves is that, in a couple of cases, the movies were not even consistent with its own story. When Merry and Pippin drank the Ent draughts, they grew both in character and in height. The physical growth was a representation of their character growth. They took matters into their own hands to convince the Ents to fight. The movies, while they did not emphasize the character growth, did mention their growth in stature. But at the end, when the hobbits were all together again, they were exactly the same height as before. A minor and probably a very petty point, but one that bothered me a little.

Again, I liked the movies, and will probably see both Hobbit movies, but I can understand why some people were very disappointed while others were mildly disappointed and others were not disappointed at all.

Re:Bah, humbug. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38453082)

For LOTR, Jackson made one decent movie followed by 2 shitty ones. Diverting from the book wasn't the problem, that the movies became boring when doing so was!

The only upcoming film I'm interested in at all is Prometheus (trailer tommorow) and I'm expecting a fraudulent von daniken shitfest there!

Re:Bah, humbug. (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 2 years ago | (#38453368)

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!"

Cartoon (1)

kodiaktau (2351664) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452224)

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. (5, Funny)

hawks5999 (588198) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452256)

Please be wrong.

Re:Oh Mayans. (1)

kodiaktau (2351664) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452296)

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.

Re:Oh Mayans. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38452702)

4th sun to 5th sun. Out of a 6 sun long day. Your actual problem is with the Aztecs who only bothered to carve their calendars to a length of 1 sun, and loop it every ~5000 years.

Well, unless the Aztecs were right to demand so many human sacrifices, and the sun god won't have enough blood to barter with the underworld for continued fertility of the land...

Re:Oh Mayans. (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452918)

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:Oh Mayans. (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452932)

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.

Broken business model (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38452280)

Pathetic, look at you all jostling to feed from the teat of the MPAA and its "broken business model".

You all deserve SOPA and its ilk until you grow a pair and boycott.

Re:Broken business model (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38452326)

Yeah! Look at all, err, 16 of you.. Shame!

Re:Broken business model (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38452592)

You have pointed out the hypocrisy of slashdot groupthink. Be prepared to be modded down to oblivion.

Re:Broken business model (-1, Offtopic)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452788)

Pathetic, look at you all jostling to feed from the teat of the MPAA and its "broken business model".

You all deserve SOPA and its ilk until you grow a pair and boycott.

This deserves insightful, not offtopic.

Re:Broken business model (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38453044)

"This deserves insightful, not offtopic."

It does, but that's not how moderation works here. It isn't about whether you have made a good and interesting point, it's about whether you agree with the groupthink. If you don't follow the party line, you are modded down, no matter how good your point is.

This movie is a complete ripoff of LOTR (4, Funny)

thatbloke83 (1529851) | more than 2 years ago | (#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)

Not unexpected... (1, Funny)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452408)

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

Odd, so was the book.

Re:Not unexpected... (2)

demonbug (309515) | more than 2 years ago | (#38453396)

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:Not unexpected... (2)

knarfling (735361) | more than 2 years ago | (#38453484)

"An Unexpected Journey" was one of the working titles that Bilbo considered as he was writing all his notes.

Re:Not unexpected... (1)

tmarsh86 (896458) | more than 2 years ago | (#38453452)

Odd, so was the book.

Actually, the book was subtitled, "There and Back Again." Chapter 1 was titled, "An Unexpected Journey".

Wow.... (1)

w4rl5ck (531459) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452586)

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 just OK to go ass to mouth.

(there are a few movie references in here, blimey, Harry...)

Re:Wow.... (5, Funny)

Pope (17780) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Damn spoilers (1)

bluestar (17362) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452588)

They gave away the ending

Excited, but... (2)

Oyjord (810904) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452806)

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.

Ripoff (0)

redemtionboy (890616) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452838)

This is such an obvious LOTR ripoff, please tell me this is a joke. It even looks like the same actor that palys the wizard...has Hollywood honestly come to this?

Re:Ripoff (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#38452928)

Hollywood has been stuck in the rut of rehashing (usually poorly) old ideas and movies for 20 years.

Re:Ripoff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38453020)

Whooooosh

Re:Ripoff (1)

quacking duck (607555) | more than 2 years ago | (#38453290)

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:Ripoff (2)

tmarsh86 (896458) | more than 2 years ago | (#38453474)

Not a very creative troll. This is copy/pasted verbatim from a You Tube comment for the trailer.

Direction style (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38452890)

Aside from the massive changes in plot lines what really bugged me about the LOTR films was that I found my suspense of disbelief being constantly broken by Peter Jackson's showy style of direction. Almost every scene has at least one clever trick that I have to analyze and consider the cinematic brilliance of rather than follow the story. I felt like the man was sitting next to me trying to justify the film rather than just letting me enjoy it.

Hopefully the hobbit won't be quite so bad in this respect.

P.S: I know what I'm saying is very subjective and I don't think that I have met anyone else who feels this way about LOTR. It really bugged me though.

Re:Direction style (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38453194)

Personally, the cinematography was not as distracting as the SWELLING MUSIC, because we wouldn't want audiences to forget that this is an EPIC MOVIE.

Re:Direction style (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38453292)

(Me again) You're right. Some of those themes would be neat to hear used by a band like Tarja-era Nightwish but they were another big distraction from the story.

Bored of the Rings (2)

drainbramage (588291) | more than 2 years ago | (#38453140)

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:Bored of the Rings (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 2 years ago | (#38453410)

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!

Afraid of hoax (1)

mseeger (40923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38453372)

At first i was afraid it was a hoax, because 2 scenes.were clearly from LotR. But i was appeased later....

Dwarves are lousy singers! (1)

photonyx (2507666) | more than 2 years ago | (#38453400)

The trailer song should've been "Misty Mountain Hop"!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...