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!

The Hobbit: the Battle of Five Armies Trailer Released

Soulskill posted about 2 months ago | from the defining-chapter-in-a-very-literal-sense dept.

Lord of the Rings 156

An anonymous reader writes: The first teaser trailer for the final installment of the Middle Earth saga, The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies, debuted at Comic-Con, and now Warner Bros have made it available online. While the trailer contains some nice shots on a visual level, very much in keeping with the Lord of the Rings trilogy, about 80% of the trailer's awesomeness is provided by the background music. Pippin's mournful song from Return of the King plays intercut with the doomed mission that Faramir leads on his father Denethor's orders.

cancel ×

156 comments

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

That has to be the most garbled summary.... (1)

sconeu (64226) | about 2 months ago | (#47562511)

Why is he talking about Faramir? Faramir isn't even BORN yet!!!

Re:That has to be the most garbled summary.... (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47562555)

You douchy uber-geeks ruin everything, you know that? Who fucking cares? I'm gonna be an awesome movie.

Re:That has to be the most garbled summary.... (0)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 2 months ago | (#47562785)

Mind your tongue, Proby.

Re:That has to be the most garbled summary.... (0)

popo (107611) | about 2 months ago | (#47563919)

It wasn't the "uber geeks" that ruined this trilogy. Jackson built up an incredible amount of "cred" with LOTR. The speed and decisiveness with which he obliterated his cred with The Hobbit is rivaled only by George Lucas and the disaster of Episodes 1 & 2.

The Hobbit is a silly script, which was mutated into a slapstick adventure-comedy. The characters are 2 dimensional and the plot could only possibly interest a child.

Thank goodness we "uber geeks" have Game of Thrones to distract us while Jackson sh*ts out another Disney-esque turd for his corporate paymasters.

Re:That has to be the most garbled summary.... (1)

Zedrick (764028) | about 2 months ago | (#47563987)

> the plot could only possibly interest a child.

Well, the Hobbit was written for children, so nothing wrong with that and you can't blame the script.

Re:That has to be the most garbled summary.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47564311)

Plots written for children that can only interest children are not appropriate for children. Perhaps a cake-only diet would only interest children or the overly childlike, but that doesn't excuse its lack of nutrition.

Re:That has to be the most garbled summary.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47564587)

> the plot could only possibly interest a child.

Well, the Hobbit was written for children, so nothing wrong with that and you can't blame the script.

Written for children does not mean it must only appeal to children. The Harry Potter series was written for children. I won't argue that it has perfect writing or strikes the perfect balance for all ages, but it does manage to be entertaining to both children AND adults.

The Hobbit movies seem to be succeeding at neither.

Re:That has to be the most garbled summary.... (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a month ago | (#47565779)

The movies were written for a Dora the Explorer level child, as opposed to children who new people dying in war, other children dying from diseases, etc.

I've always disagreed with it being called a children's book. The fact that he wrote it for his children does not make it a children book. There was no age 8-13 category of books in 1937.

Re:That has to be the most garbled summary.... (1)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about a month ago | (#47564935)

It wasn't the "uber geeks" that ruined this trilogy. Jackson built up an incredible amount of "cred" with LOTR. The speed and decisiveness with which he obliterated his cred with The Hobbit is rivaled only by George Lucas and the disaster of Episodes 1 & 2.

I'll concede that The Hobbit movies have been boring-as-fuck. But, then again, I found the LOTR movies to be boring-as-fuck too. I pretty much concur completely with the Randall Graves interpretation [youtube.com] of LOTR: Just a bunch of boring movies about walking. And at least the Hobbit has a dragon. He's a boring-as-fuck dragon, mind you, but at least he can fly instead of walk.

Re:That has to be the most garbled summary.... (1)

azav (469988) | about a month ago | (#47565205)

Making the powerful dwarves goofy characters with outlandish facial hair relegated them to comic relief was completely disgusting.

Re:That has to be the most garbled summary.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47562605)

He's referring to a scene from one of the LotR films, I forget which one, where Pippin sings the same song while Faramir goes on his suicide mission.

Re:That has to be the most garbled summary.... (1)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | about 2 months ago | (#47563665)

RotK?

Such a Waste (4, Insightful)

nmb3000 (741169) | about 2 months ago | (#47562559)

After the travesty of the first two films, I'm not looking forward to the third movie.

While far from perfect, I felt that Peter Jackson at least made an attempt to stay true to the original story in Lord of the Rings. For the Hobbit he didn't hold anything back as sold out to the suits at Warner Brothers. Both he and the Tolkien family should be ashamed they agreed to this abortion screenplay.

Re:Such a Waste (2, Insightful)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 months ago | (#47562609)

What's so horrible about The Hobbit?

LOTR all had battle scenes that took up half the movies that were too long. Songs were not included and plot from the book cut to make room for action and Hollywood.

The Hobbit has songs in it and has more of a personal story and A LOT MORE of what is in the books and material from The Silimarian. The 1st hobbit was a little long, but I liked the 2nd a lot and I loved Misty Mountains which had a nice theme to it that I found lacking in LOTR.

Re:Such a Waste (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 months ago | (#47562647)

And by the time the last film is released, will be about 4.5 hours too long.

Re:Such a Waste (2)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 2 months ago | (#47562771)

That's what I thought to begin with during the First Trilogy, to be quite frank, and I probably wouldn't have suffered the first 6 hours of "incomplete story" except that my boys were children and I was accustomed to being disappointed at movies they preferred.

Yawn like the Spiderman movies.

Midway through the final chapter of the Trilogy, when Theoden's rallying the troops on the hill and the sun is rising... man, I'm All In. I'll give this the benefit of the doubt.

Re:Such a Waste (1)

Kittenman (971447) | about 2 months ago | (#47563323)

And by the time the last film is released, will be about 4.5 hours too long.

Wait for the 'Directors cut'. We'll be looking at about 5 hours per movie.

Re:Such a Waste (1)

azav (469988) | about a month ago | (#47565209)

Director's* cut Directors = more than one Director Come on. Learn this plural vs. possessive thing.

Re:Such a Waste (5, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | about 2 months ago | (#47562675)

What's so horrible about The Hobbit?

The book? Nothing. It's a decent story. I like it.

But if you're talking about the movie trilogy then there's a problem. It isn't "The Hobbit". It's a movie that wants to be "tolkienesque" and uses names and scenes that Tolkien had used in his stories. The same as the "I, Robot" movie was with Asimov's stories.

Look at the page count in The Lord of the Rings. Then compare it to the page count in The Hobbit.

Now compare the run time of the movies. Either LoTR got butchered or The Hobbit was puffed up with standard Hollywood hero crap.

I'm skipping it because I do not want ANOTHER generic Hollywood cliche driven green-screen-spectacle-fest.

Re:Such a Waste (1)

deadweight (681827) | about 2 months ago | (#47562717)

I loved the LoTR movies. I could *not* watch the Hobbit movies. WTF happened to them? I also noticed that dwarves were no longer dwarves, but "normal height" humans shot at weird camera angles. I know there are no such thing as dragons or orcs, but dwarves are freaking real and you can hire some FFS!!!

Re:Such a Waste (5, Informative)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 2 months ago | (#47562953)

No, the Lord of the Rings dwarves do not exist and you won't find a human world replacement for them. These are not the same as dwarves in Game of Thrones or Willow. Lord of the Rings dwarves are a separate species from humans. If you used an actor with dwarfism then it would not fit the part.

Re:Such a Waste (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 months ago | (#47564327)

I also noticed that dwarves were no longer dwarves, but "normal height" humans shot at weird camera angles.

Exactly the same as in LotR, then - that is, if you count 6'1" John Rhys-Davies as "normal height."

Re:Such a Waste (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47562855)

"Either LoTR got butchered or The Hobbit was puffed up with standard Hollywood hero crap."

These things are not mutually exclusive.

Re:Such a Waste (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47562925)

The book? Nothing. It's a decent story. I like it.

But if you're talking about the movie trilogy then there's a problem. It isn't "The Hobbit".

I don't see why people hate the movies so much. Yes, it has an unnecessary subplot out of "The Silmarillion" but that doesn't make it awful. I have enjoyed the first two installments despite it not following the original book page by page. I have read sjbe's post and while I agree with some of his complaints, I still enjoyed them.

Re:Such a Waste (4, Insightful)

Artifakt (700173) | about 2 months ago | (#47563707)

Some of the Hobbit film bits are supposedly from letters JRRT wrote Christopher about 20 years after LOTR came out, describing how he would like to rewrite the book to make it tie in better with LotR and the limited Silmarillion notes he had at the time. Tolkien was supposedly torn between finishing up the Silmarillion or going back and working on a 'better' hobbit first. I suspect there's some truth to this claim - LotR draws from a great many sources that are fundamental in studying early English literature, from Spencer's Faerie Queen to the "Jack the Giant Killer" stories, to the Song of Roland to Beowulf itself, and the Hobbit's literary roots are mostly in one story - the same one Wagner drew on for Das Rheingold. Some of the dwarf naming and such in the Hobbit seems to connect to Finnish mythological tales and maybe some other Scandinavian sources, but the references are mostly truncated there or limited to a few very short phrases to fit in a children's book.
          I can certainly see JRRT deciding to work in some other bits from classics he couldn't really use in LotR. LotR took so long because Tolkien wanted it to have a certain gravitas as fantasy and so aimed for being really encyclopedic in referring to the roots of Fantasy literature, and at least touching broadly on English literature of the mundane and modern kinds. Tolkien even read some Lovecraft (and liked it), probably before writing the scene of the Watcher at the gate to Moria, possibly afterwards to see how it compared, and read or re-read some of the more esoteric works of T. S. Elliot, R L Stevenson and such, maybe just to have a better idea of where he wanted to steer modern English lit. or maybe to see if he needed to actually address these modern works in what he aimed to make his Magnum Opus. What he did afterwards, planning a next stage after becoming such a success, was doubtless quite technically ambitious.
        I respect people saying they don't like this or that, but some of those people might want to do a little research before they label everything they don't like as not true to Tolkien. In particular, the scenes where the dwarves try to use all the gold to kill the dragon seems to have some real connection to Tolkien's plans for the story, and possibly the way there is more about human 'politics' in Laketown is too. Once people get some idea of what might have been the Hobbit, rewritten for an audience the same age as LotR's, they can rag on the Hobbit equivalents of Elven Shield Surfing twice as hard. (Please! I could have done without half the falls in the Goblin caverns and had the height of the other half quartered, and the extended commercial for the Elven Rafting Riveride at Universal Orlando). Still, not everything here needs to be line for line either.

Re:Such a Waste (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47564725)

It's not true to Tolkien, period.

Your rationalizations are weak. He wrote a letter, so his published works are bullshit and now we go with whatever Peter Jackson farted out that morning.

Re:Such a Waste (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47564795)

I don't know where you're getting this information, but it's not true. PJ is not allowed and has not used anything from Tolkien's letters or his redrafting of The Hobbit. The Tolkien estate has reserved the rights to those and has said there's no way Hollywood is getting their hands on them. Anyone can verify this by actually reading Letters and the History of the Hobbit. Stuff like the gold scene is one hundred percent out of PJ's head.

Re:Such a Waste (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47565099)

> I don't see why people hate the movies so much. Yes, it has an unnecessary subplot out of "The Silmarillion" but that doesn't make it awful

No, it doesn't. It's all made up by PJ. Some of it is "supported" by single sentences in the LotR appendices, but that's it. PJ is not allowed to use anything from The Silmarillion.

Re:Such a Waste (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47564775)

Look at the page count in The Lord of the Rings. Then compare it to the page count in The Hobbit.

Now compare the run time of the movies. Either LoTR got butchered or The Hobbit was puffed up with standard Hollywood hero crap.

Not a fair comparison. Hobbit and LotR are written in different styles: LotR is more descriptive, so more pages = less screen time. Hobbit is pretty sketchy, so you need more screen time to cover events taking the same number of pages.

Imagine a movie of the Silmarillion. Similar page count but you would need a hell of a lot of movies to cover those pages in the same amount of detail.
(Actually, please don't imagine a movie of the Silmarillion, it'll only give Peter Jackson ideas!!)

Re:Such a Waste (3, Insightful)

Perky_Goth (594327) | about 2 months ago | (#47562725)

The action scenes from The Hobbit are way, way over the realm of suspension of disbelief. And they're all surrounded by pits, for some reason, but the good guys never trip.

Re:Such a Waste (1)

aNonnyMouseCowered (2693969) | about 2 months ago | (#47562921)

WTF? It's fantasy with wizards, elves and dragons, and you're talking about suspension of disbelief? If it's an Asimov or AC Clarke adaptation maybe we can start talking about believability, but a high fantasy like this one? Anything goes, except perhaps when it comes to absolute immortality. Apparently "immortal" characters or monsters tend to have some sort of weakness that allow them to get killed by a determined hero or villain.

Re: Such a Waste (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47563233)

Thorin, the dwarves, Bilbo, all of them are absolutely immortal in the movies. They've been through dozens of incidents which would certainly have killed them all - fantasy story or not - yet they come through completely unscathed every time. Because Hollywood.

Suspension of disbelief doesn't mean "anything goes". It means the story must be internally consistent for the audience to accept it. Wizards, elves, and dragons doesn't mean that Thorin and Company being completely invulnerable is acceptable - unless that invulnerability has been legitimately established within the story world and is consistent with it.

That is not the case here, which is why the writing for the movies is utter shite.

Re: Such a Waste (1)

oneiron (716313) | about 2 months ago | (#47563713)

They've been through dozens of incidents which would certainly have killed them all - fantasy story or not - yet they come through completely unscathed every time. Because Hollywood.

That's exactly what it felt like when I read the book as a kid. It's not "because hollywood." That's the way the story is written in the book as well.

Re: Such a Waste (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47564705)

I sense you may have watched a tad too much GoT. You WANT characters to die now. It's a classic and well documented psychological phenomena known as ......

Re: Such a Waste (1)

azav (469988) | about a month ago | (#47565219)

Stupid ass facial hair and braided eyebrows because Hollywood.

Re:Such a Waste (1)

Urkki (668283) | about 2 months ago | (#47563879)

WTF? It's fantasy with wizards, elves and dragons, and you're talking about suspension of disbelief?

Yes! It's a fantasy world with its own rules. Suspension of disbelief needs to apply to the rules of that fantasy world. Should be easy, when the world is all made up, right? I mean, they have all the fantasy stuff to play around for "unbelievable" stuff, which would still be perfectly believable and "realistic" (for the lack of a better word) in the context of the fantasy world.

In a fantasy film, there's no excuse to bend the basic physics too much, when you can apply magic to make it believable, as long as the magic is applied in a way that is consistent with the particular fantasy world. Failing at this breaks the suspension of disbelief, and when that happens in a fantasy movie, there's really nothing left, it's ruined.

Re:Such a Waste (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47564443)

Sure, there's danger in Lord of the Rings. But there was only one shot I can think of that was just stupidly fake (Legolas snowboarding down the oliphant).

Yes, there's lucky breaks, and Legolas is a supernaturally good archer, and Gandalf fights the Balrog. But 99% of it is stuff that you can imagine a normal human (with really good training) doing, and maybe getting away with it.

The dwarves (and Bilbo) in the Hobbit, on the other hand, are all secret Jedi masters. There's no other explanation for how lucky they are. They are nobodies (compared to the epic heroes in the fellowship), and they are wading through battles on a regular basis that are bigger, faster, and more dangerous than anything the fellowship ever saw.

It's like comparing Star Wars to prequels. There's so many special effects that they just aren't special, and they are turned up to 11 so they aren't even believable.

Re:Such a Waste (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | about a month ago | (#47564675)

WTF? It's fantasy with wizards, elves and dragons, and you're talking about suspension of disbelief? If it's an Asimov or AC Clarke adaptation maybe we can start talking about believability, but a high fantasy like this one? Anything goes, except perhaps when it comes to absolute immortality. Apparently "immortal" characters or monsters tend to have some sort of weakness that allow them to get killed by a determined hero or villain.

Suspension of disbelief is a challenge and probably more important to maintain in a fantasy than general fiction. A story must maintain internal consistency with it's own tone and rules. If you tell me that a dragon can fly and breath fire, well then I'll believe you, say Elves exist and can make pineapple smoothies by snapping their fingers, and as long as you don't have one of your Elves die of starvation because he didn't remember about the smoothie trick, it will work. The magic wasn't a problem in the Hobbit, it was the tone. The movie constantly shifted between extreme slapstick humor, to somber memorials of beauty forever lost, back to grossout gags, sudden videogame action, and into gritty graphic violence. You can't do that and expect to keep the audience. You have to pick something and stick with it, otherwise we don't know what movie we are watching.

Suspension of disbelief (1)

sjbe (173966) | about a month ago | (#47565253)

WTF? It's fantasy with wizards, elves and dragons, and you're talking about suspension of disbelief?

Why not? Suspension of disbelief is probably the most important thing about sci-fi and fantasy movies. Far more than say a romantic comedy. You can do it well or you can do it poorly. You need a good script, good acting and good special effects to make a movie like that believable. If you are going to ask the audience to believe in magic or magic-science for 2-3 hours that is fine but you can't simply throw anything on the screen and excuse it just because the story says it is magic. The story has to be carefully crafted, the acting has to be believable and the special effects have to be good enough to keep your brain from screaming "bullshit" the whole time.

I've always had a hard time getting into Dr Who as an example. The stories are often flat out amazing and the acting has had some pretty good moments but the special effects and cinematography have been so bad (especially the older stuff) that my brain simply couldn't accept it. I have the same problem with Star Trek except that the stories aren't as good (IMO) though the FX is better (not great but better). One can enjoy them but I'm always left thinking that they could have been better.

The Hobbit didn't take the material seriously (3, Interesting)

sjbe (173966) | about 2 months ago | (#47562757)

What's so horrible about The Hobbit?

The movies are stretched and it shows. They simply didn't have enough plot or action to fill the time and I got fairly bored at times. There are seemingly endless and mostly pointless action scenes that serve no purpose and frankly aren't all that well done either. The special effects were rushed. The dialog they added is insultingly bad. Etc... While I won't say they are horrible money grab movies on the level of say The Phantom Menace, they could have been a LOT better even if they had just spent more time in the editing room. Basically they knew they would be a commercial success so they really didn't try very hard.

LOTR all had battle scenes that took up half the movies that were too long. Songs were not included and plot from the book cut to make room for action and Hollywood.

The Hobbit is worse regarding the action scenes - the ones in LOTR didn't feel nearly as stretched out. And as for the "songs", there are lyrics but no actual music in the books so any music would be contrived. And frankly NOBODY wanted these movies to be a musical. (If you did then you are the only one) I sure as hell didn't go into them wanting to hear a bunch of "music" and I've read the Lord of the Rings probably close to 20 times. That is not what is the really interesting bit about the books - it's more of an intellectual curiosity than anything else that would have been terrible on the big screen.

The Hobbit didn't take the material seriously (5, Funny)

jazman_777 (44742) | about 2 months ago | (#47563193)

What's so horrible about The Hobbit?

The movies are stretched and it shows.

Sort of stretched, like... butter scraped over too much bread.

Re:The Hobbit didn't take the material seriously (2)

jafac (1449) | about 2 months ago | (#47563593)

What's funny, is that I remember for DECADES, fans bemoaned the lack of a good LOTR/Hobbit adaptation, because the special effects weren't good enough. We had the Ralph Bakshi atrocity, then the Rankin-Bass embarrassment. (and for the hipsters, the little-known black-and-white Russian adaptation). Then. . . Nothing. No studio was going to invest their good money into such a farce. Then Peter Jackson came along, with some contacts who had a CGI technique that could maybe make human actors look like Hobbits - then, we finally got LOTR.

And there was great rejoicing among the FANS. But if you really want to look at LOTR with a critical eye, step back and take a look at it, and yeah, it was pretty stretched-out (and at the same time, weirdly had the feeling of being tightly compressed; like months of road-travel and hiking crammed into a 30-minute TV episode compressed.) (I hike. And I don't know how you make a long hike "interesting" to a cinema audience. But that experience, of long day-after-day exposure to nature, that absolute breathless awestruck feeling when you behold the spectacle of pristine wilderness, the deafening silence, the overwhelming feeling of "letting-go" of your personal safety in the face of insects, weather, predators, rough terrain, homesickness, isolation, struggle, confusion, physical exhaustion, was all very deftly conveyed in Tolkein's prose, and totally absent from the movies). But, overall, still better than the Bakshi version of the movie.

Hobbit takes that to the next extreme. I think it's obvious that the Studio wasn't going to fund Hobbit unless they could milk it to the same profitable extent that LOTR was milked. Only, it's like 1/10th the literary material to work with. I think it's also apparent that the creative team had a difficult time making that requirement work. My guess is that everybody was all geared up to accept this new whizbang 48 fps 3d technology, and that they were hoping that this would make these movies so visually engaging that the audience wouldn't care about the pacing and story and plot problems. I think that they almost certainly fell into the groupthink trap, and bought into their own bullshit, and somehow, anybody who had any nagging doubts was just never in a position to say; "fuck, this is awful, we need to back up and fix this shit." because, by that time, it was probably too late, and the only impact of speaking-up would be to end one's career in the industry. I've been on projects like that. I know that feel.

Re:The Hobbit didn't take the material seriously (1)

CxDoo (918501) | about 2 months ago | (#47563989)

Um, maybe Ralph Bakshi movie is an atrocity for you. For me it's the best Tolkien adaptation ever.
Today there's too much money to milk out from Tolkien books for anything NOT completely-dumbed-down to happen. Including Jackson's LOTR movies that are 'great' only compared to poorly animated turd fest that is Hobbit, parts one to eleventy.

No perfect LOTR movie (1)

sjbe (173966) | about a month ago | (#47565063)

Um, maybe Ralph Bakshi movie is an atrocity for you. For me it's the best Tolkien adaptation ever.

That rotoscoped steaming turd? I've rarely been more disappointed at a movie. It had reasonable fidelity to the books but that alone was hardly enough to make it good. I remember excitedly renting it from the video store sometime during the 1980s and thought that it was a really badly done movie. I thought the rotoscoping was bizarre and still do - uncanny valley reaction I guess. The voice acting was meh at best and the "action" was nothing to write home to mom about. Plus they released it as The Lord of The Rings but it only covered about half the story. I can live with it being condensed into a single movie even if they chop a lot out but then give some indication that there is more to the story. I clearly remember saying "That's it? Where is the rest of it?"

Jackson's adaptations of LOTR, like the recent The Hobbit trilogy, could have used more editing but it was at least in general a good and engaging movie. Visually excellent, faithful enough to the books in most places, captures the epic The worst bits of Jackson's adaptations are when they start going off script for stupid jokes like the dwarf tossing joke during the battle of helm's deep. It wasn't all bad but a high percentage of the dialog that deviated from Tolkien's words was pretty campy. That sort of thing should have only been on a gag reel. More editing would could have made a tighter story but it was a decent movie even if an imperfect adaptation.

Re:Such a Waste (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about 2 months ago | (#47562823)

What's so horrible about The Hobbit?

The scene with Saruman in the first movie.

Re:Such a Waste (1)

jfengel (409917) | about 2 months ago | (#47563027)

That is stuff Tolkien actually talked about at more length in the LotR appendices and in material published after his death. It seems reasonable to include it, since this is really intended as an LotR prequel rather than just The Hobbit on its own. I'm not entirely crazy about the way they wrote it, but it's not something they invented out of whole cloth.

I'd have liked to have seen more of Saruman, in fact, but that was limited by Christopher Lee's health. It ties in to the continuation of the Gandalf plot line from the second film.

Re:Such a Waste (3, Informative)

Culture20 (968837) | about 2 months ago | (#47562897)

What's so horrible about The Hobbit?

Gandalf knows that Sauron is back. This directly contradicts LotR. In fact, there's no reason Gandalf would let Bilbo keep the ring once he knew Sauron existed. And what's up with the Smaug fight scene? Instead of deducing Lake Town as the source of the intruder and exacting his revenge on the town (since he can't find the intruder), the movie version of Smaug runs around under the mountain for a while (so they can show off all the cool under the mountain visuals) then inexplicably decides to leave the dwarves without killing them. And the barrel riding was supposed to be a leisurely ride down the river; an escape plan showing the dwarves how clever their burglar really is, escaping with no danger or bloodshed. Also, Smaug didn't die in the second movie. That's the climax of the second portion. The cliffhanger should have been the first hints of the gathering of the five armies.

Re:Such a Waste (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 2 months ago | (#47562969)

It all could have been one movie it they followed the book. You could probably read the book in the time it takes to watch the first movie, if you were a fast reader.
When they first said it was two movies then it almost made sense, they could have brought in some extra detail from the LotR books. But when it was later expanded to 3 movies then it was clear they were going heavy handed and just wanted Yet-Another-Trilogy.

Re:Such a Waste (1)

necro81 (917438) | about a month ago | (#47564663)

It all could have been one movie it they followed the book

that's what I'm looking forward to once the third film is out: the fan-edit that removes anything extraneous (i.e., not explicitly in the book). Take out all of that, cut each chase sequence roughly in half, and you will end up with ONE tightly paced movie about 2:45 in length that is an entertaining adaptation.

Re:Such a Waste (5, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | about 2 months ago | (#47563761)

Gandalf knows that Sauron is back. This directly contradicts LotR. In fact, there's no reason Gandalf would let Bilbo keep the ring once he knew Sauron existed.

Actually this is exactly like in the books.

The Fellowship of the Ring, "The Council of Elrond", p. 261

'Some here will remember that many years ago I myself dared to pass the doors of the Necromancer in Dol Guldur, and secretly explored his ways, and found thus that our fears were true: he was none other than Sauron, our Enemy of old, at length taking shape and power again. Some, too, will remember also that Saruman dissuaded us from open deeds against him, and for long we watched him only. Yet at last, as his shadow grew, Saruman yielded, and the Council put forth its strength and drove the evil out of Mirkwood and that was in the very year of the finding of this Ring: a strange chance, if chance it was.

As for the ring, Gandalf did not know it was the One Ring.

Then for the last time the Council met; for now we learned that he was seeking ever more eagerly for the One. We feared then that he had some news of it that we knew nothing of. But Saruman said nay, and repeated what he had said to us before: that the One would never again be found in Middle-earth. (...) [Gandalf] sighed. `There I was at fault,' he said. `I was lulled by the words of Saruman the Wise; but I should have sought for the truth sooner, and our peril would now be less.'

He finally found an ancient scroll to test if it is the One Ring, because on the surface it looks like any other minor magical ring.

And then in my despair I thought again of a test that might make the finding of Gollum unneeded. The ring itself might tell if it were the One. The memory of words at the Council came back to me: words of Saruman, half-heeded at the time. I heard them now clearly in my heart.
` "The Nine, the Seven, and the Three," he said, "had each their proper gem. Not so the One. It was round and unadorned, as it were one of the lesser rings; but its maker set marks upon it that the skilled, maybe, could still see and read."

This is where it all starts in Fellowship of the Ring.

Re:Such a Waste (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 2 months ago | (#47563797)

After Gandalf discovers Bilbo had the ring, Saruman admonishes Gandalf for not seeing it sooner, blaming it on too much Longbottom Leaf.

Re:Such a Waste (1)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | about a month ago | (#47564449)

And the barrel riding was supposed to be a leisurely ride down the river

Yeeeeah, we'll get right on that. Everyone from the studio execs to the Oscar committee will positively leap with glee when we release our new $200,000,000 holiday-season spectacular, THE HOBBIT, PART II: A LEISURELY RIDE DOWN THE RIVER.

Pro tip: Don't quit your day job to move to Hollywood.

Re:Such a Waste (1)

sjbe (173966) | about a month ago | (#47565597)

Yeeeeah, we'll get right on that. Everyone from the studio execs to the Oscar committee will positively leap with glee when we release our new $200,000,000 holiday-season spectacular, THE HOBBIT, PART II: A LEISURELY RIDE DOWN THE RIVER.

So instead we got a drawn out, absurd even by fantasy movie standards, pointless action scene that added nothing to the story. That entire scene could have been cut out and the movie would have been better for it. At most it should have been 1-2 minutes long if they absolutely had to have some action.

Pro tip: Don't quit your day job to move to Hollywood.

Sounds like you already did and worked on The Hobbit.

Re:Such a Waste (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47564827)

Gandalf knows that Sauron is back. This directly contradicts LotR.

CItation needed. It's pretty clear from the Appendices that Gandalf and the Council of the Wise know exactly who the Necromancer is and go and drive him out of Dol Guldur. Following that they don't appear to know for some time that he goes back to Mordor and builds up again in secret, but then I haven't seen anything about that in the movies either.

In fact, there's no reason Gandalf would let Bilbo keep the ring once he knew Sauron existed.

Gandalf doesn't know that Bilbo's ring is the One Ring until 60 years later when he puts 2 and 2 together early in FotR.

Hard to believe same director made both trilogies (2, Interesting)

UpnAtom (551727) | about 2 months ago | (#47562919)

LOTR: Excellent pacing, lots of suspense, amazing sets, good cinematography, decent casting.
Hobbit: Terrible pacing leading to little suspense, cheap sets, awful cinematography with very awkward angles, mediocre casting.

In The Hobbit, Jackson makes the particularly noob-director mistake of trying to feature far too many characters. Nor does he give us much reason to care about them. Compare the OK Dwarven song in Hobbit 1 with the first encounter of the hobbits with the Nazgul.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

Interestingly, this fundamental scene is set up by special effects, but you've also got the nice touch of the creepy crawlies trying to get away from the Nazgul and Frodo's weird (but later understood) response. This scene sets up the whole trilogy: the pitifully out-of-their-depth hobbits vs the servants of evil.

The main problem with LotR, changing the storyline, gets worse in The Hobbit too. Obviously we didn't give Jackson a hard enough time about it.

Re:Hard to believe same director made both trilogi (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47563815)

Thank you for the link and reminding us that it was this scene that set the dark foreboding theme for the rest of the trilogy as a serious cinematic interpretation of a classic tale. Unlike The Hobbit which is Hollywood tripe.

Re:Such a Waste (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 2 months ago | (#47563101)

pointlessly long action scenes. just count in hobbit 1 how many times they jump from a tipping over column to another.

so much added crap which explains nothing.

I mean fuck, you could do it in a 2 hour movie! and it's been done before too!

Re:Such a Waste (2)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 2 months ago | (#47563033)

sold out to the suits at Warner Brothers

That's not going to turn out well for them. After the first steaming pile, the subsequent two aren't even on my list. Even if the next two were great, what were we going to do, show our kids only the last half of the story (well, with other random crap thrown in)? It's not like they were going to go back and fix the first one.

Once the copyright fully expires, somebody will make a great TV miniseries of The Hobbit. The folks doing Pratchet's stories would do a good job, for instance.

Oh, and Jackson has blown his cred with everybody. Hope the contract with WB was airtight on this trilogy because that payment's gonna have to last for quite a while.

Re:Such a Waste (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 2 months ago | (#47563813)

WE are looking at 2043 before it goes Public Domain, provided it doesnt get extended again.

Re: Such a Waste (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47565107)

TV miniseries? Really? For what should be a 2-3 hour story?

Re:Such a Waste (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 2 months ago | (#47563397)

While far from perfect, I felt that Peter Jackson at least made an attempt to stay true to the original story in Lord of the Rings. For the Hobbit he didn't hold anything back as sold out to the suits at Warner Brothers. Both he and the Tolkien family should be ashamed they agreed to this abortion screenplay.

LotR is a story worth telling, it's a grand epic. The Hobbit is... well, a children's tale about a dragon's treasure. In LotR it's obvious why Frodo must be the reluctant ringbearer, while in the Hobbit you have Bilbo making this insane leap to join a crazy bunch of dwarfs and a wizard to go steal treasure from a dragon. Totally credible. And being caught by big dumb trolls who want to eat them is totally cliche. All the characters are either good guys or bad guys, there's no conflicted characters like Gollum. There's no sacrifice like Boromir. And not a single female character to bring up the wife acceptance factor, it's all about the bling. Trying to use the Hobbit as follow-up to LotR is total folly, I know because I read them in that order and it's weaker in every respect for everyone above the age of ten.

Yes, they're totally molesting the story of the Hobbit but mainly by ret-conning in as many things related to LotR as possible to cover over its own pathetic plot. Like the whole story with Dol Guldur, in the book Gandalf is simply away but in other bits and pieces Tolkien does describe that and as a LotR prequel it's just as important as the main story line. I mean Bilbo already has the ring, at the end of the story he has the ring - the rest of the tale doesn't really affect the LotR story line in any significant way. The book had to stand on its own legs. The end of the Hobbit will just be a waypoint to the first LotR movie. I mean this book ends with a hobbit returning home to the Shire with two small chests of gold, a mithril chain mail and a ring, it's not exactly a grand finish like destroying the One Ring and it never will be.

Re:Such a Waste (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47563597)

Yeah, too bad there wasn't some kind of character like Gollum in The Hobbit. 8-/

Re:Such a Waste (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47563745)

This commentary pretty much nails it. The Hobbit is a great kids book, and LOTR is decent young adult fiction. Now, they're both crappy adult movies. The movies are all equally disappointing because the books the world is so rich, but the story would have to be gutted and rewritten by someone with talent to come up with something decent.

Re:Such a Waste (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47563909)

The Tolkien family had no say in the matter, that's why they're pissed off (probably missing out on free millions is at the core, but still).

Re:Such a Waste (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47564717)

> Both he and the Tolkien family should be ashamed they agreed to this abortion screenplay.

The Tolkien family didn't. Tolkien sold the rights to the Hobbit and the LotR decades ago because he needed the money badly. The family has made it very clear there is no way in hell they are getting their hands on any other Tolkien IP. They hated the LotR movies.

Re:Such a Waste (1)

DrXym (126579) | about a month ago | (#47564803)

The main problem with The Hobbit is (as Bilbo might say) it feels thin, like butter scraped over too much toast. There's too little story to work with to justify 3 3-hour movies.

Maybe Peter Jackson will release a limited abbreviated edition on Blu Ray to make up for this. Anyway the middle instalment was pretty good (thanks to Smaug) though both it and the first movie are guilty of some utterly pointless detours and WTF moments particularly any time Radaghast appeared on screen.

Re:Such a Waste (1)

Squidlips (1206004) | about a month ago | (#47565129)

> the suits at Warner Brothers That would be leisure suits, sunglasses and gold chains, right?

Re:Such a Waste (1)

Tumbarumba (74816) | about a month ago | (#47565195)

I thought the movie was an accurate view of the book, as can be seen here: http://lotrproject.com/blog/20... [lotrproject.com]

Won't be seeing it (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 2 months ago | (#47562621)

I'm not going to watch "Tauriel" or the Dwarves split into 2 parties, or the "black arrow" nonsense, or how Bard is really like Robin Hood.

The first movie was a stretch, the second was bullshit.

Re:Won't be seeing it (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 months ago | (#47562659)

Worse, it was fucking boring. The Hobbit would have made a fine two hour movie, maybe two 1.5 hour movies. But there is not enough plot for seven and a half hours.

Re:Won't be seeing it (1)

plopez (54068) | about 2 months ago | (#47562901)

A dwarf and an elf in love? In Tolkien's universe? Oh come on

Not looking good (5, Insightful)

KeensMustard (655606) | about 2 months ago | (#47562683)

One of the better features of The Hobbit (or There and Back Again) is that Bilbo is knocked unconcious at the beginning of the battle of the 5 armies. And since the story is written from his perspective (or he wrote it) there is virtually no dewcription of the battle itself. SO I was hopeful that we would not be subjected to yet another boilerplate over the top battle scene where actually fearsome creatures (trolls, wargs) repeatedly fail to kill their enemy and participants appear to be able to defy the laws of physics. I mean, for Manwes sake: if i wanted to see acrobats I'd go to the circus. Actual character exposition appears ot be confined to clumsy dialogue. Apparently there is no screen time for visual exposition on the change in Bilbo from comfortable, insular shire hobbit to a slightly amoral but very plucky thief. Instead he (bilbo) needs to convey this through long, confessional speeches with the dwarves, whilst 2 dimensional elves do stupid things.

Re:Not looking good (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47562769)

I'm usually against but-the-book rants in movies but I definitely agree on this. I gave up on the hobbit series being plausibly good as soon as I saw preview footage involving Radagast the Brown.

I mean damn he was A) just a brief mention in the hobbit and B) not some bird-shit coated foil for comic relief he was one of the friggan Istari, one of the 5 Maiar that took on the form of men.

Tolkein would have been flipping tables over it.

Re:Not looking good (2)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | about 2 months ago | (#47563043)

I'm usually against but-the-book rants in movies but I definitely agree on this. I gave up on the hobbit series being plausibly good as soon as I saw preview footage involving Radagast the Brown.

Fucking rabbit sleigh ride. That was unconscionable.

I'll take the Battle of Five Armies, and I'll take the Extended Super Collector's Director's Edition WTF 95 Hour version too. It's all fine. Peter Jackson can knock himself out.

And then I will download the Kerr fanedit that takes all that footage and makes it reasonably match the book. No pathetic attempt at elf-dwarf romance, no whacky dragon chase scenes, no orc invasion of Lake Town, no running fight down the river, no motherfucking rabbit sleighs. And no whatever stupid shit they feel obliged to stick into Battle of the Five Armies.

There will probably be an hour and forty five minutes of footage left. One solid Tolkein movie. And that's how it should be.

Re:Not looking good (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 2 months ago | (#47563823)

The costumer who approved the bird poop needs to be blacklisted.

Re:Not looking good (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | about a month ago | (#47564881)

I'd bet good money that it was Peter Jackson himself. In the LOTR his makeup guys knew he wanted that one 'John Wayne' Orc to be gruesome, and they actually tried to overshoot what Peter Jackson expected. Little did they know that Peter Jackson of "Dead Alive (Braindead)" fame was still alive inside Big Budget PJ. He approved it. Since then, you have seen the costumes for the grotesques go beyond the realms of good taste and into comically aweful. Just look at how the orc costumes changed from Fellowship to The Hobbit (before they went CGI), the Hobbit 'main-bad' orc costumes were so far over the top that they had to ditch them for CGI because they looked horrible with the higher framerate/quality cameras BBPJ was using. Personally I think the only reason people think the costumes were awesome was because the CGI was so bad.

Seriously, take a side by side look at LOTR-Lurtz and the Hobbit-Orc costumes and it's night and day.

Re:Not looking good (4, Insightful)

Dutch Gun (899105) | about 2 months ago | (#47564181)

Read LoTR's description of Tom Bombadil again, an equally powerful but rather loony figure in his own right, and tell me that Tolkien couldn't have imagined Radagast the way he was depicted (admittedly probably without the bird shit).

Frodo and Sam stood as if enchanted. The wind puffed out. The leaves hung silently again on stiff branches. There was another burst of song, and then suddenly, hopping and dancing along the path, there appeared above the reeds an old battered hat with a tall crown and a long blue feather stuck in the band. With another hop and a bound there came into view a man, or so it seemed. At any rate he was too large and heavy for a hobbit, if not quite tall enough for one of the Big People, though he made noise enough for one, stumping along with great yellow boots on his thick legs, and charging through grass and rushes like a cow going down to drink. He had a blue coat and a long brown beard; his eyes were blue and bright, and his face was red as a ripe apple, but creased into a hundred wrinkles of laughter. In his hands he carried on a large leaf as on a tray a small pile of white water-lilies.

A bit silly-looking for one of the most powerful entities in Middle-Earth, no? Somewhat frivolous-minded, too. The Council of the Ring considers Bombadil as a safekeeper:

‘No,’ said Gandalf, ‘not willingly. He might [take the ring], if all the free folk of the world begged him, but he would not understand the need. And if he were given the Ring, he would soon forget it, or most likely throw it away. Such things have no hold on his mind. He would be a most unsafe guardian; and that alone is answer enough.’ ‘But in any case,’ said Glorfindel, ‘to send the Ring to him would only postpone the day of evil. He is far away. We could not now take it back to him, unguessed, unmarked by any spy. And even if we could, soon or late the Lord of the Rings would learn of its hiding place and would bend all his power towards it. Could that power be defied by Bombadil alone? I think not. I think that in the end, if all else is conquered, Bombadil will fall, Last as he was First; and then Night will come.’
 

Why should Radagast have necessarily been a clone of Gandalf or Saruman? Tom comes across as halfway insane or a goofball, dressed like a clown and constantly breaking into song. Gandalf also speaks of him as ancient and powerful, but one who, if they gave him the ring, would literally forget about it. Jackson's take on Radagast was, I think, similar to Bombadil, one who concerned himself more with nature than the goings-on in the world of wizards, men, elves, and dwarves.

Re:Not looking good (3, Insightful)

krups gusto (2203848) | about 2 months ago | (#47563133)

Copyrights don't expire anymore.  This is necessary so that great writers like Tolkien are incentivized to keep writing more books.  It also prevents anybody from making Mickey Mouse porn.

Yawn. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47562857)

[Insert complaint here about how much it sucks because it's not exactly as I pictured it in my mind when I read it when I was 13.]

Re:Yawn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47563087)

Oh hell no. We're complaing because this has got all the signs of what made the first two suck oh so very hard

Next Jackson Project (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about 2 months ago | (#47562877)

Will be taking Tolkien's "Leaf, by Niggle" and turning it into a clone of The Swamp Thing.

Re:Next Jackson Project (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 2 months ago | (#47562975)

Roverandom with wargs?

Why did they link to the stupid article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47562887)

The article sucked. A direct link to the youtube video (http://www.youtube.com/v/ZSzeFFsKEt4) would have been better.

A video game (3, Insightful)

plopez (54068) | about 2 months ago | (#47562905)

In search of a story.

Trailer not HFR? (1)

snsh (968808) | about 2 months ago | (#47562943)

It's too bad the trailer is not being released in 48fps HFR just in ordinary 1080p. My local theater is on the HFR list, and showed Journey in HFR but got so much negative feedback that they didn't do a single screening of Smaug in HFR. The next closest HFR-capable theater to me is 3 hours away.

Since the online trailer is just about the only chance most folks will have to see any of the films in HFR, it's a shame that it's not been made available.

Re:Trailer not HFR? (1)

nowsharing (2732637) | about 2 months ago | (#47563089)

I was very excited to see Smaug in HFR, and made a bit of a voyage to see it in a theater that was projecting 48FPS. I was completely blown away by how shitty it looked. Smaug the dragon was very good looking, as was a lot of the scenery and landscape. The sets and characters looked like a cheap theater production though. Everything screamed out that it was a prop or a backdrop.

Believe me, 48FPS is not the future. Or if it is, then there is a long way to go in setting it up and filming it properly.

Re:Trailer not HFR? (3, Insightful)

Dutch Gun (899105) | about 2 months ago | (#47563319)

Believe me, 48FPS is not the future. Or if it is, then there is a long way to go in setting it up and filming it properly.

It probably is, but I'm guessing our generation will have a really hard time accepting it. Our minds have been conditioned to think of 24 FPS displays as "cinematic" and higher FPS (30 or higher) at "cheaper", because for years the TV images we've seen *have* looked much "cheaper". It's an association that I don't think we can easily rationalize our way out of. Why do you think videogames have gone so far as to artificially render fake film grain or lens flare artifacts? That's a completely illogical thing to do except for the pleasant association people have with the look of traditional movie media.

Simply put, I think the high frame rate and high fidelity end up causing a negative association in our minds. It's not that it really looks worse - we're just not used to it looking quite so sharp and fluid, and it just doesn't feel "cinematic" to us. At least, that's the conclusion I've come to. Honestly, nothing else makes much sense to me, because otherwise, we're always pushing to make the picture better, more realistic, etc. After all, you can't really blame increased frame rate for making a movie set look more "fake", right? Film has always been a "high resolution" experience, after all.

Or, put another way, I think film technology just fell into the uncanny valley [wikipedia.org] for some people, where it looks so close to reality that their brains are rebelling a bit and causing distractions, which leads to a poor viewing experience.

Re:Trailer not HFR? (1)

turp182 (1020263) | about 2 months ago | (#47563733)

I believe you are spot on regarding perception and and possibly an uncanny valley effect.

In my opinion, when our heads move we experience motion blur, our eyes cannot be focused perfectly when in motion (when the head moves slowly focus can track, but if the objects in the field of vision vary significantly in distance from the subject then a lot of refocus is going on). Only when we stop do we get full clarity in our primary field of vision and improved peripheral vision (I'm just spit balling here, outside my realm of knowledge...).

Games have started adding motion blur as an option, The Forest is my primary example. Turning quickly to find an attacker isn't just turning, it's perceiving the blur. In game it is creepy. Try turning quickly (first person shooter speed) to find a small object. This is perfect gaming realism, not uncanny at all (scary when being attacked, scary game).

24 frames per second for a movie provides a slight blur. Higher, well focused scenes, will be lacking in this some. I'm not sure if it is just the fact that we expect a movie to look as it does at 24 fps (prior experience) or if we find it uncanny. There is a softness to 24 fps as well.

Movies like Avatar are perfectly focused and should be uncanny, but they are like video games without motion blur (Avatar used motion blur a lot though), perfect focus at all times. They are realistic, but not of our reality. Uncanny? Yes. Are we comfortable watching it? Yes.

During the trash avalanche scenes at the beginning of Idiocracy I noticed the entire frame was in perfect focus (the far off background). I only noticed this after a couple of dozen viewings...

Anyway, very thought provoking comment.

Re:Trailer not HFR? (1)

jwdb (526327) | about a month ago | (#47565147)

So, 24 FPS is the vacuum tube amplifier of the film world - the distortion we're familiar with and like?

Re:Trailer not HFR? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47563143)

HFR == High Fucking Resolution?

And the long wait begins (1)

J.R.C.L. (3739333) | about 2 months ago | (#47563123)

i am expecting more action scenes. http://bit.ly/1klIVOK [bit.ly]

finally over (4, Funny)

rjejr (921275) | about 2 months ago | (#47563157)

So can I finally get my Lego Smaug now? I've been waiting 37 years for it.

Re:finally over (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47563915)

You mean you didn't repaint the green dragon model like everyone else?

good lord (1)

ruir (2709173) | about 2 months ago | (#47564125)

Most of the films are nowadays pre-sequels or rehashings of old successes. Then they say assistance is declining because of "piracy". No I dont want to even hear of another starwars, Lord of the Rings, Alien, Terminator sequel or pre-sequel or whatever.

A general plea for sanity (1, Insightful)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 months ago | (#47564305)

Just a quick word before (too late) everyone starts debating the relative merits of The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, Peter Jackson's beard, etc.

Other people are allowed to have opinions that differ from yours and that's fine.

Looks mediocre (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about 2 months ago | (#47564345)

Am I the only one to think that it looks mediocre?
It's clearly not nearly as good as The Lord of the Rings was.

The story isn't the problem, it's the direction.

One (perhaps only) Good Thing (1)

some old guy (674482) | about 2 months ago | (#47564385)

Cate is back as Galadriel. :)

Hackson Jackson. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47564639)

Peter Jackson is a nice guy, great organiser, and keen as fuck, but he's a crap director.

this should honestly be called literary necroporn (1)

argStyopa (232550) | about a month ago | (#47565055)

I mean, what else do you call it when a director and studio execs repeatedly ass-hump JRR Tolkien's corpse until it's a tattered, torn remnant, not even recognizable as related to it's original form?

I'm not kidding.
This isn't The Hobbit...this is "fantasy action movie ver#3, including characters from The Hobbit".

And everyone knew it was coming. Do you know of a single person, anywhere who (when told The Hobbit would be 3 movies) didn't do a double take and say WTF?

I really loved the LOTR movies. I largely agreed with the editorial choices to remove parts that were non-germane to the plot. But this?

This is appalling. The trailer looks appalling, and the first two movies were appalling. Not only were they not The Hobbit, they weren't even GOOD 'generic fantasy movies'.

Fuck you, Peter Jackson, you weird, barefoot shitbird, for the future people your abortion will drive away from what's really a canon of fantasy literature. May your memory as a director rot in hell right next to Ralph Bakshi.

For those disappointed folks who haven't already seen them, CinemaSins has done an amusing job of reviewing the ample superficial flaws in the first two. Watch these, they're more entertaining than these films themselves:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] (the first movie)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] (the second)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?