Beta
×

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!

New Hobbit Trailer Debuts

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the hairy-feet-abound dept.

Lord of the Rings 130

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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

hobbits (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41391371)

make me shave my feet in shame

Re:hobbits (-1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#41391563)

"Homeland."

F***k that sh*t.

WTF, where's the freakin' D R A G O N ??? !!! (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 2 years ago | (#41391779)

If it's like the last preview, it needs a lot more DRAGON BURNING DOWN THE TOWN and a lot less of dwarves singing.


WHAT THE FUCK ?!!!

Re:WTF, where's the freakin' D R A G O N ??? !!! (2)

cervesaebraciator (2352888) | more than 2 years ago | (#41391875)

I'm sorry to say there's probably a reason you haven't seen a dragon. Remember, they stretching this out into two--no wait, scratch that--three films. You can't go showing your dragon too early.

It reminds me of a parody of the final Harry Potter film(s) the Onion did a while back. See here [theonion.com] .

Re:WTF, where's the freakin' D R A G O N ??? !!! (1)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 2 years ago | (#41392203)

If they keep stretching movies out like that they'll end up like this [theonion.com] . Also The Onion (linked from the page above).

Re:WTF, where's the freakin' D R A G O N ??? !!! (3, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#41392249)

The whole homeland crap in the voiceover narration betrays horrible mis-representation.

The lure was the TREASURE.

The battle of 5 armies was over preserving the TREASURE.

Lonely Mountain was never a "homeland". That was Khazad Dum.

Re:WTF, where's the freakin' D R A G O N ??? !!! (1)

Slider451 (514881) | more than 2 years ago | (#41392617)

The Dwarves had more than one home. The Blue Mountains (Ered Luin) west of the Shire are yet another.

Re:WTF, where's the freakin' D R A G O N ??? !!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41394203)

No, the trailer is sort of correct. Yeah the dwarves want the treasure but they'd also attempt to retake their homeland if it was possible. They're not supposed to know that it is possible at the beginning though, because the dwarves assume that killing the dragon is impossible.

The battle of 5 armies was provoked primarily by the death of the goblin king

Re:WTF, where's the freakin' D R A G O N ??? !!! (0)

HeLLFiRe1151 (743468) | more than 2 years ago | (#41394635)

You're absolutely right. Damn you Peter Jackson!! Why did you have to make this movie? Couldn't you just left it to our imaginations of how this movie should have been made?

If you don't like the FUCKING MOVIE then don't FUCKING WATCH it! You fucking child!

Re:WTF, where's the freakin' D R A G O N ??? !!! (1)

Beerdood (1451859) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393085)

If it's like the last preview, it needs a lot more DRAGON BURNING DOWN THE TOWN and a lot less of dwarves singing. WHAT THE FUCK ?!!!

Oh jeez, there's no satisfying some people. I can understand when nerds might dislike Matthew Mcconaughey's latest rom com because of jealousy, or because the plot is unrealistic, or because they have a Y chromosome. But even when they make a movie glorifying irritable, overweight neckbeards - arguably slashdot's greatest demographic - there's still haters!

Meh? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41391389)

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

Re:Meh? (4, Funny)

Genda (560240) | more than 2 years ago | (#41391487)

"The Hobbit" without Smaug, would be like L.A, without smog... unnatural and strangely surreal.

Re:Meh? (0, Flamebait)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#41391645)

Crap.

Jackson has given Tolkien the aesthetic of a "Pirates of the Caribbean" sequel.

Despite being about a modest, and diminutive person - in adventure with a band of diminutive but grandiose fellows, there is nothing in this film done on the requisite small-scale.

Just an abominable pile of cinematic tripe.

Re:Meh? (2, Insightful)

antsbull (2648931) | more than 2 years ago | (#41391839)

Really? I didn't realize that you had seen it? Reviewing a film before you've even seen it is a touch douchey don't you think?

Re:Meh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41392003)

"Really? I didn't realize that you had seen it? Reviewing a film before you've even seen it is a touch douchey don't you think?"

Let me crap in your food and accuse you of douchery when you refuse to eat it.

Re:Meh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41392699)

Bad analogy. It's more like crapping in the appetizer course and then him saying the desert sucks. Douchery intact.

Re:Meh? (2)

spongman (182339) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393131)

Drink up me 'obbits, yo ho!

Re:Meh? (1)

Genda (560240) | more than 2 years ago | (#41394675)

Whacha be sayin bout dem lil men wit de hairy feet!!! Eh, Monn?

Re:Meh? (1)

Genda (560240) | more than 2 years ago | (#41394691)

I'd pay good cash money to see Captain Jack Sparrow played by "mini-me" Verne Troyer. Have it be about a shrinking curse... that would certainly be having me blowing my favorite beverage outta my nose... hairy feet would be optional.

Re:Meh? (3, Funny)

i_ate_god (899684) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393575)

Or San Francisco without smug

Re:Meh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41395381)

As long as Smaug doesn't look like the cat like monster in the cartoon version, I can wait.

Awesome (4, Informative)

OldSport (2677879) | more than 2 years ago | (#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:Awesome (1)

nege (263655) | more than 2 years ago | (#41391513)

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

Re:Awesome (2)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393125)

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 (3, Insightful)

i_ate_god (899684) | more than 2 years ago | (#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 (4, Interesting)

funwithBSD (245349) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:Awesome (2)

Mr Foobar (11230) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393327)

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

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

I win! :D

Re:Awesome (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41391575)

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 much about the loss of "The Scouring of the Shire" :-) Anyway, we're both looking forward to seeing Smaug eventually, although that's probably going to be mostly in the next film.

Mine was "Star Trek II." (1)

JaimeZX (780523) | more than 2 years ago | (#41391709)

Kaaaaaaaaaaaaahnn!

Re:Awesome (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41392033)

"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.

Re:Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41392089)

At 4? Hatari! NVM John Wayne, "Pockets" (Red Buttons) was the "geek hero" of that film. These days his outfit in that movie would be in style. Back then I could hide in the floorboard to get into the drive-in. The trunk was filled with teenage cousins.

Re:Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41392199)

back to the future/gremlins double feature at the drive in was my first movie memory.

Re:Awesome (1)

Java Pimp (98454) | more than 2 years ago | (#41392319)

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:Awesome (1)

CQDX (2720013) | more than 2 years ago | (#41392723)

Mine was seeing 2001 at age 4. Still trying to figure that one out.

Re:Awesome (1)

ShoulderOfOrion (646118) | more than 2 years ago | (#41395637)

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.

Re:Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41393807)

except star wars is a shitty weak story

Re:Awesome (1)

jeffasselin (566598) | more than 2 years ago | (#41394739)

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

Finally (0)

madmarcel (610409) | more than 2 years ago | (#41391479)

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"

Go to youtube instead (1)

Snaller (147050) | more than 2 years ago | (#41394493)

Then you won't have that ugly apple marring the entire trailer

Are they really adding an Elf to the company? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41391483)

I haven't seen any of the trailers, but I read somewhere that they were adding a female Elf to the company, because it was too much of a sausage-fest. Please, please, please tell me that it's not true. It was bad enough that PJ added elves to the Battle of Helm's Deep. Most Jacksonisms I can live with, but changing the fundamental makeup of the company by adding an entirely new character is just too much.

Captcha is "ranting". Am I, really?

Re:Are they really adding an Elf to the company? (1)

SilverJets (131916) | more than 2 years ago | (#41391579)

Wouldn't surprise me. He's making 3 movies out of it. How much extraneous crap is Jackson cramming into the story in order to get 3 movies?

Also, I heard Legolas is in this. God.

Re:Are they really adding an Elf to the company? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41391673)

Well the movies doesn't only deal with what happens in the book but also things that are mentioned briefly in passing.

Re:Are they really adding an Elf to the company? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41392187)

That would make sense. Gandalf disappears early on to deal with The Necromancer in Mirkwood. I'm sure PJ could turn that into an entire movie all its own.

Re:Are they really adding an Elf to the company? (4, Funny)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393693)

By the look of things, PJ could turn Gandalf taking a dump into an entire movie all its own. "Hnnnn...you...shall...not...pass...hnnn".

Re:Are they really adding an Elf to the company? (3, Funny)

cervesaebraciator (2352888) | more than 2 years ago | (#41391911)

Also, I heard Legolas is in this.

Wait, so Orlando Bloom's going to play a female elf?

Re:Are they really adding an Elf to the company? (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 2 years ago | (#41395063)

Legolas isnt a girl?

I thought she was always playing hard to get with the hairy midget from the lotr movies.

Re:Are they really adding an Elf to the company? (2)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 2 years ago | (#41392769)

Wouldn't surprise me. He's making 3 movies out of it. How much extraneous crap is Jackson cramming into the story in order to get 3 movies?

Also, I heard Legolas is in this. God.

That would not be implausible since he was the son of the King of the elves of Mirkwood.

Re:Are they really adding an Elf to the company? (5, Funny)

Iniamyen (2440798) | more than 2 years ago | (#41391591)

One does not simply rewrite the story!

Re:Are they really adding an Elf to the company? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41392077)

"One does not simply rewrite the story!"

Apparently you never watched Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy or touched the books.

Re:Are they really adding an Elf to the company? (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#41391663)

If I remember the hobbit correctly, that's going to pretty well F up the script WRT the dwarve / elve racial tensions.

Couldn't they have just added a teenage female human with a crossbow without screwing up the story too much? I heard all fantasy-type movies are now required to have one of those in the cast.

Re:Are they really adding an Elf to the company? (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#41391705)

Oh no. Please, I hope I'm getting this wrong, but I've got a real bad feeling I'm gonna be right about this:

I read somewhere that they were adding a female Elf to the company, because ...

... he thinks he's remaking "snow white and the seven dwarfs"

Trailers (4, Insightful)

Scutter (18425) | more than 2 years ago | (#41391491)

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.

Re:Trailers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41391697)

I can't imagine a trailer for The Hobbit contains spoilers for anyone on /.

That said, I completely agree with you. When there's a movie that I'm looking forward to (and I don't already know the details, such as when it's based on a book I've read), I'll actively look away from commercials on TV and cover my ears because it will undoubtedly spoil something. Lucky for me, I rarely look forward to movies, so I don't often have a problem

Re:Trailers (1)

Scutter (18425) | more than 2 years ago | (#41391789)

I can't imagine a trailer for The Hobbit contains spoilers for anyone on /.

Of course it'll have spoilers. While the story is obviously well-known, there are also sets, costumes, music, acting, and all of the other things that go into a finished film. If all I were interested in was the story, I would just read the book. I don't even like seeing the still photos (for ANY film), because I want to approach the film fresh and be surprised and amazed by everything on the screen.

Re:Trailers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41392201)

"Of course it'll have spoilers. While the story is obviously well-known, there are also sets, costumes, music, acting, and all of the other things that go into a finished film. If all I were interested in was the story, I would just read the book. I don't even like seeing the still photos (for ANY film), because I want to approach the film fresh and be surprised and amazed by everything on the screen."

Here is a hint to go with your attention deficit disorder... It's just like LOTR's but with a more butchered storyline.

Re:Trailers (1)

Scutter (18425) | more than 2 years ago | (#41392291)

Here is a hint to go with your attention deficit disorder... It's just like LOTR's but with a more butchered storyline.

You completely missed the point. Also, I'm not sure why you are accusing me of having ADD. Not wanting to have a film spoiled by trailers means I have a mental disorder?

Re:Trailers (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#41394309)

ADD is NOT a mental disorder, it's a serious medica

Oh look, a bird!

Re:Trailers (1)

furbearntrout (1036146) | more than 2 years ago | (#41392429)

  • 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.

Re:Trailers (1)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 2 years ago | (#41392457)

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.

Re:Trailers (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 2 years ago | (#41392479)

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:Trailers (2, Funny)

DrFalkyn (102068) | more than 2 years ago | (#41392973)

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? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41391525)

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

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

Re:What's a Nimoy? (0)

fishybell (516991) | more than 2 years ago | (#41391827)

I would mod you up, but my bucket of mod points is empty. Greatest song ever.

Re:What's a Nimoy? (1)

funwithBSD (245349) | more than 2 years ago | (#41394387)

What's a Nimoy, precious?

Yay, more walking! (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#41391571)

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

Wish it was not split into 2 movies (1)

danbuter (2019760) | more than 2 years ago | (#41391589)

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.

Re:Wish it was not split into 2 movies (2)

space_jake (687452) | more than 2 years ago | (#41391693)

It's getting split into three movies actually.

Re:Wish it was not split into 2 movies (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41392993)

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:Wish it was not split into 2 movies (1)

Scutter (18425) | more than 2 years ago | (#41391735)

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

Re:Wish it was not split into 2 movies (1)

GNious (953874) | more than 2 years ago | (#41391989)

Still split in half - just with a 3rd half attached somewhere.

Re:Wish it was not split into 2 movies (1)

Misagon (1135) | more than 2 years ago | (#41391757)

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 have 20/20 vision and the inter-eye crosstalk and lack of depth of field in so called "3D" movies bugs the hell out of me. Where I live, movies are not shown in 2D, (takes me an hour to travel to the closest 2D theatre, which is a shoebox) so watching it at home after the BluRays have come out is likely going to be my only option if I want a good movie experience.

Re:Wish it was not split into 2 movies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41394639)

Its funny because you commented on how long the movie was going to be and how much it needed to be edited, but then stuffed in 50% more exposition about characters, places, and details we really don't give a shit about.

PJ is that you?

Re:Wish it was not split into 2 movies (1)

alaskana98 (1509139) | more than 2 years ago | (#41391761)

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 (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#41391703)

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

Re:48 FPS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41392331)

Yes...

1) AMC Theatres - Loews 312 W 34th St, New York, NY 10001
2) Echo Park Filmcenter - 1200 North Alvarado Street at Sunset Boulevard Los Angeles CA 90026

Re:48 FPS (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#41392735)

Is that a comprehensive list?

Re:48 FPS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41393389)

I will only watch it in 48 FPS and ... 3D.

Re:48 FPS (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#41394327)

Same here. Which I'm guessing means I won't be watching it, since I don't live in NYC or LA.

Re:48 FPS (1)

funwithBSD (245349) | more than 2 years ago | (#41394393)

How are you going to get a headshot with 48 FPS?

I lost interest in the movie series... (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41391857)

I understand people absolutely love this movie and that I'm in the minority, and maybe it is a good film, but it doesn't change that I can't stand it for my own personal reasons. So I aim to ruin for everyone else. :P

[Nerd Rage] I lost interest in the movie series in part because of the inconsistent quality of the special effects. My OCD didn't help, either, as I started picking up on unbelievably boneheaded mistake after mistake. For the sheer amount of money spent on it, you'd think something as basic as understanding the dynamics of water when filming miniatures would be taken for granted. Water behaves completely differently at different scales, so you have to at least slow the film down. The breach of the dam at the White Tower gave me flash backs to Dante's Peak. Dear gods it was awful. Coupled with Jackson's completely singular and unimaginative directing style (epic score, turn to the camera and cry; wash, repeat), repetitive music score, Elijah Wood's... well, wooden acting (and poor Sean Astin having to carry his ass through three movies), I just about had enough.

Now that I've seen the trailer for The Hobbit, the "waterfall" at Rivendale was the last straw. I just can't watch it. ... well, maybe for Cate Blanchett.

Re:I lost interest in the movie series... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41391993)

You must be great fun at parties.

Re:I lost interest in the movie series... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41392455)

Just wait until I explain how Pin the Tail on the Donkey only promotes the liberal agenda!

Re:I lost interest in the movie series... (2)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 2 years ago | (#41392533)

Thank god my OCD doesn't force me to nitpick movie special effects.

Re:I lost interest in the movie series... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41393149)

Wow. You're an asshole.

Distorted square shape (1)

uvsc_wolverine (692513) | more than 2 years ago | (#41391869)

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:Distorted square shape (1)

iceaxe (18903) | more than 2 years ago | (#41392129)

...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...)

Re:Distorted square shape (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41392379)

It's an ear trumpet, that said dwarf is using.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ear_trumpet

Familiar Lyric (1)

Tarlus (1000874) | more than 2 years ago | (#41391913)

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."

Re:Familiar Lyric (1)

jeffasselin (566598) | more than 2 years ago | (#41395245)

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.

nice but (0)

CosaNostra Pizza Inc (1299163) | more than 2 years ago | (#41391927)

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 (4, Insightful)

iceaxe (18903) | more than 2 years ago | (#41392365)

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.

Great, more senseless mangling of both plot and (1)

PJ6 (1151747) | more than 2 years ago | (#41393267)

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:Great, more senseless mangling of both plot and (1)

bartron (772079) | more than 2 years ago | (#41394353)

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.

It's going to be an extremely boring movie series (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41393511)

Granted the book was a great read but it's not going to translate to well to film. The last 45 minutes of the final movie will be good.

Leave it to Jackson to play plot point twister (1)

otopico (32364) | more than 2 years ago | (#41394289)

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.

Re:Leave it to Jackson to play plot point twister (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41394733)

That's Beorn, and he's straight out of The Hobbit.

Re:Leave it to Jackson to play plot point twister (1)

jeffasselin (566598) | more than 2 years ago | (#41395253)

I think you're confusing Radagast for Tom Bombadil.

A fine line between 'creating buzz' and spoling it (1)

CuteSteveJobs (1343851) | more than 2 years ago | (#41394559)

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.

The CGI seems like an indifferent video game. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41395099)

Surprising.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?