The Hobbit Trailer
Display mode:
Who's online
There are currently 1782 users online.
About | Staff | Help | Terms & Conditions | Codes of Conduct | Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2012 The Office of Letters and Light :: All posted novel excerpts remain copyright their authors.
The Hobbit Trailer
The first official trailer for The Hobbit was out... just then ^_^ I am so excited! =D
What do you guys think?
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
I think it looks very promising. I dislike Thorin; he looks too different from his description. Also I'm not sure what that thing with Gandalf and Galadriel was meant to be about.....
Looks good though.
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
Well, I am absolutely freaking out! 8D I waited up until 4 in the morning to see it when it was released, and could hardly go to sleep afterwards! The dwarves singing keeps sending shivers down my spine every time I hear it, I think there's a huge possibility they've cast an absolutely perfect Bilbo, Ian McKellen IS Gandalf... and as for Thorin, I think we might get used to the look of him quickly if the actor is good, and I have faith in Mr. Armitage, so no worries on that front. :) This was just a marvellous Christmas gift! Can't wait for December next year!
(Though I'm mentally weeping a little bit because of part 2 being a staggering TWO years away. Three of my most highly anticipated characters - Smaug, Bard the Bowman and the Master of Laketown - might not even show up in the first...)
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
Wait...they're splitting it into TWO PARTS?!?!?!
There's no way to justify this except for money, or else "Fellowship" would have been three movies long. That's completely ridiculous.
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
I think it's a pretty daft idea. However, I reckon that they'll end pt. 1 on the first shot of Smaug and maybe have him say something.
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
Yes, it is two parts. Apparently they are adding in some stuff that didn't get shown in the book-- the Necromancer being kicked out of Mirkwood or something? Honestly it's been like 10 years since I read the Hobbit, I barely remember what happens in it.
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
I am kind of in hysterics I am so excited! Lord of the Rings is my life. I just...AAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!
Ahem...sorry.
Anyways, it looks like it is going to be so brilliant. I'm just so excited.
I was ecstatic to learn Martin Freeman was going to play Bilbo and even more so now that I've seen him. I think he was made for the part. It just all looks so good!
@HarpGuy-I would not worry about Thorin. Richard Armitage is a brilliant actor. I'm kind of dying of happiness that he is in it.
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
The movie looks fantastic, although the "two parts" thing pisses me off tremendously.
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
I haven't seen the trailer yet, but I know it's out. It's about time. But it's supposed to be two parts? How are they going to do that? Seriously, the book wasn't THAT long. And getting back to what MalcomCooms was saying, if The Hobbit is two parts, then Fellowship would be three. Now think how many parts Return of the King Extended Edition would be. Hollywood, stop breaking up movies into parts like that when it's not necessary!!!
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
Yes! So exciting! Bilbo is perfect! (but I knew that ever since I saw the BBC Sherlock . . .) And it's so nice to have Gandalf back! And Gollum! As for the singing Dwarves . . . Most. Amazing. Thing. Ever. Epicness itself! What a great trailer! I CAN'T WAIT TILL NEXT YEAR!!! Though yes, they could definitely have fit the whole thing in one movie . . .
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
For everyone confused: yes, it is being split into two parts. The first, coming out next year, is "An Unexpected Journey", and the second is "There and Back Again" premiering December 2013. :)
While I'd agree that it seems a bit unnecessary to split it into two parts at first glance, I've come to terms with the thought since it means they're going to expand the story quite a bit. The Hobbit is a marvellous book, but if a few added scenes are required to make it translate well to the screen, I won't protest, to be honest. Rather have a little extra goodness than miss out on details! So far, it seems that Gandalf's doings behind the curtain are the biggest additions, but I've also heard they'll be expanding a little on various important characters who don't get that much screentime in the book, like Bard. And, well, I'm much more willing to pay hideous amounts of money to go see both parts of The Hobbit than I am to do the same for Twilight!
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
Here's the thing, though: If I could get enough people to boycott the movie to make a difference, I definitely would. As it is, it would mean nothing.
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
Evidently you are entitled to your own opinion! I'm just trying to look at it from the bright side, as I think it could be well worth it in the end. I'm sorry you're feeling cheated and disappointed, but I hope you'll find a way to enjoy it anyway, if you wish to. :)
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
Thank you! I hope it's clear that NONE of my annoyance is directed at you, though. I'm going to end up watching the movie and I'll probably enjoy it very much.
I predicted this though when they split Deathly Hallows into two movies. Twice the money? Why not! And of course, to my great distate, the movie industry caught on immediately and has found another way to double up on profits at our expense.
Ugh. So frustrating and annoying.
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
I think it would be fine without extra scenes. But I suppose it wouldn't be too bad if they only add just a little bit. However, if they go overboard, I will lose interest.
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
On a positive note-whoever's playing Bilbo is ridiculously perfect the part.
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
Yes! Martin Freeman is the best! :)
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
Yes, I do agree that Biblo IS ABSOLUTELY PERFECT!!
I looove how different the dwarves look from each other!!
Ahh, I'm so excited, I want to see it SO BAD, but my family doesn't!!! That spells bad omens for me watching it as soon as it comes out!
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
It looks great! I can't wait for it to come out!
I haven't finished the book, because it's just boring, so I'm glad they are taking liberties with the story because if they stuck to the book entirely it wouldn't be very exciting or suspenseful. That is what I think at least. But if you liked the book I can understand if you're upset.
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
I am SO excited. Watching the trailer made me remember just HOW AWESOME all the LotR movies are; I will definitely be rewatching the trilogy at the earliest possible chance.
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
I am ridiculously excited for this! I adore Martin Freeman, I think he's perfect for the role, although it is strange seeing an actor I'm so familiar with playing Bilbo. I'm also excited that they managed to sneak in Benedict Cumberbatch as the voice of Smaug and the Necromancer.
Richard Armitage is not at all what I was expecting for Thorin, but I think I trust Peter Jackson so I won't complain until I've seen more.
Also, whatever weird moment happened between Gandalf and Galadriel definitely raised my eyebrows. But again, I feel like this movie is going to be brilliant so hopefully that didn't mean what I thought it meant.
I'm so excited!!!
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
I'm excited. :)
As for the two movies thing, honestly, I wish they had made the Lord of Rings into more movies so they wouldn't have left so much out. Tom Bombadil anyone? That said, two HP7 movies were made and they still left out sooo much. If they make two movies so everything can be included, I'm happy. If they make two movies and still leave a lot out, I'll be pissed. I do hope that they don't add some ridiculous subplot.
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
Yes, making it into two parts is more than likely a ploy for more money. However, as long as those two movies are well done, I don't really care about that. As long as it's good, they can have my money.
And from what I've seen of the trailers, it *does* look like it's going to be good. I'm pumped. :)
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
I also don't like that they're making us wait an extra year.
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
It is sad. I'm sad that most movies are falling into the two-part movies.
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
Agreed. From what I've been told, Breaking Dawn needed to be done that way, but when I heard that Deathly Hallows was being done as two movies, I could only think "Really? THAT had to be done in two parts?" And The Hobbit isn't as long. How are they going to pull that off?
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
Really? :/ I thought there was barely enough plot in Breaking Dawn for one movie, let alone two. I've heard they're adding a lot more to the plot (that wasn't in the book) to the second part, too.
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
I was so excited when I saw it, it looks wonderful! I think Freeman looks great as Bilbo and I like the portrayal of the dwarfs (I don't really remember the description of them in the book)... anyhow, I'm really looking forward to next December!
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
OMG SO EXCITED. It looks like a gorgeous movie, and I'm SO glad it's in two parts. I always thought Gandalf's stuff he did would be pretty awesome to see. In other news, if Gandalf and Galadriel kiss I will barf!
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
I'm not impressed by what I've seen. They've stuck in a load of pointless fan fiction. Also, that ain't Thorin.
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
Oh, it looks BRILLIANT! I especially love the music too!
And Vacillator.... it was a two minute trailer that so far hasn't done anything to defy canon.... well.... except for Gandalf and Galadriel which I thought was kind of weird....
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
That's what I was referring to. Had Tolkien even invented Galadriel when he wrote the Hobbit?
I just get the feeling that the movie is going to be full of unnecessary cameos, fan service for silly elf fangirls, excessive homages to the LotR movies and general cruft, to the point that it will feel like a mere footnote to the LotR movie trilogy, when it should be its own thing.
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
Probably not, but considering that she was alive at the time and PJ wants to incorporate parts from the Appendices into The Hobbit, it does make sense for her to appear even if she's not necessary. At least they're making it semi-canonical because I believe that going to put the White Council into the movie and Galadriel was part of that.
I understand where you're coming from, but it's not quite its own thing. I really see nothing wrong with it being tied to LOTR because it IS a prequel. The cameos they're having, the ones I know of at least, aren't exactly unnecessary either. Including the White Council makes up for Galadriel, Frodo and old Bilbo are used to frame the story, and Legolas appearing in Mirkwood is probably the most logical of them all.
But.... none of us have seen the movie yet. Sure, they could wreck it, but I think that there's a higher likelihood that our fears about it will be for naught.
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
It isn't a prequel. A prequel is written later, but set before a previous work, usually to explore the backstory of that work. The Hobbit is a standalone novel, and LotR is a sequel. Tolkien only wrote it because his publisher asked for another story about Hobbits, and didn't like what Tolkien was writing at the time (the Silmarillion).
I think we might also have to quibble over the meaning of the word 'unnecessary'. Clearly Frodo, Galadriel, and Legolas are not necessary to tell the story of the Hobbit by virtue of the fact that they aren't mentioned anywhere in the text. You would have thought someone would have noted such a glaring omission some time in the last 70 years, if the story didn't work without them.
I wouldn't mind so much if there was a good reason for the cameos, but they are blatantly there for the sole purpose of going "Look at me! I'm from that epic film trilogy that this is just a postscript to!"
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
Wouldn't "The Hobbit" be a prelude after "The Lord of the Rings" was written?
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
It wasn't written as a prelude, so no.
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
But Tolkien later edited it specifically so it would fit in with the rest of the Middle Earth canon. Why does it have to have been written as a prelude for it to be one?
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
I expect it fits the dictionary definition of 'prelude' simply by preceding Lord of the Rings, but using a term like that suggests it has little merit in its own right or capability to stand on its own, which simply isn't true. The purpose of the book was never to act as a mere setup for the events in LotR, and treating it that way in retrospect is frankly a disservice to one of the great classic fantasy novels.
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
If it fits the dictionary definition of prelude then that's why I call it that. I love The Hobbit. But I have no problem calling a spade a spade.
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
Dictionary definitions are just mindless semantics without any context.. The Hobbit can be considered a prelude in the sense that it precedes the Lord of the Rings, but that is not the meaning conveyed when you refer to it as a prelude. If what you are trying to say is "The Hobbit happens before the Lord of the Rings", then yes, it fits that particular dictionary definition of prelude. If what you are trying to say (and given the context of this discussion, it seems more likely) is "The Hobbit exists only to set up the backstory for a more important work", then no.
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
...Or I meant the first definition.
Yeah, let's go with that.
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
To be honest, I don't even think that definition is correct, as it doesn't appear in all dictionaries - only on dictionary.com, as far as I can see, and I think less and less of dictionary.com the more I have this type of debate.
The more accurate definition of a prelude, which appears in all dictionaries, is a piece that serves as an introduction to the main work, and that is not the purpose of the Hobbit.
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
I meant that it came before Lord of the Rings, was a separate story, but it was still tied to the original trilogy. I guess that's technically not the dictionary definition of a prequel.
Of course, they're not absolutely necessary and The Hobbit would be great without them, but it's not as if they're destroying the story either. Unless they actually destroy the story, which I really doubt, I have no problem with their inclusion. I don't quite see how the inclusion of these characters are going to affect the story at all. Frodo won't even be in it, Galadriel will be in an entirely different scene and not even cross paths with Bilbo and the dwarves, and Legolas will most likely be just put in Thranduil's court and the Battle of the Five Armies (at least they didn't replace Bard with him). On the particular note of Legolas, I do recall seeing an article or something of the like somewhere where Tolkien actually said that Legolas was in Mirkwood at the time of the Hobbit and the only reason he wasn't included was because one, he wasn't invented at the time, and two, the story is told from Bilbo's eyes and it wouldn't be right for him to be able to give name to an elf he didn't know.
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
A prequel has to be created after the work it precedes, otherwise it isn't a prequel.
Maybe it will be a good movie anyway, but I still don't see what business Galadriel has being in the Hobbit. I don't want to know what the white council was doing while Bilbo was on his quest, because Tolkien didn't see fit to include it in his book. If they write it themselves, it's fan fiction, and inherently inferior. I don't care when they cut things from adaptations of classic works, but who do they think they are to add whole extra narratives? If I want fan fiction, I'll write it myself, thanks. I don't need some nobody script writer's irrelevant take on things.
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
The thing is, technically it is canon. Remember all those times Gandalf disappeared in the Hobbit? Those were because The White Council was deciding whether to attack Dol Guldur. I don't really see any reason why PJ can't include other bits from the appendices. It really isn't fanfiction at all since it actually happened in canon, it just wasn't really fleshed out.
I actually prefer added bits to cut bits, but to each their own, I suppose.
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
Writing an entire narrative loosely based on a couple of vague lines in the appendices is fan fiction as far as I'm concerned. In any case, if it's not in the book they're adapting, why should it be fleshed out? It's not part of the story, and doesn't serve any purpose. There is already a whole movie trilogy about the War of the Ring, so some meaningless historical skirmish between the white council and Sauron adds nothing of value. It is just pointless cruft for the sake of cruft, or more likely, an excuse to shoehorn in some cameos.
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
If you think it's fanfiction, fine, but I don't agree.
Well, why shouldn't it be fleshed out? It's not like they're ever going to make a live action version of The Silmarillion, so this is the only chance they'd have to put in those kinds of things. Plus, you can't really fault them for wanting to tie it in to Lord of the Rings in some way.
And... I don't know how much of the books you've read, but it wasn't a meaningless skirmish. If they hadn't driven Sauron out of Mirkwood, Mirkwood would have been taken over by his forces, Gollum wouldn't have been captured, and Legolas would never have joined the Fellowship.
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
It's fan fiction because it wasn't written by Tolkien. Whether it's 'technically canon' or not is irrelevant. If I were to write a screenplay of Harry Potter from Snape's point of view, that fits entirely with established canon, it's still fan fiction because I'm not J. K. Rowling. The same goes for writing extra bits in the Hobbit from Gandalf's point of view.
Why do you think those kind of things need to be put in? It's an adaptation of the Hobbit, not an adaptation of the entire history of middle earth. If it's not part of the story of the Hobbit, it shouldn't be in. This isn't a chance to put in those kind of things. If those kind of things are not in the book, then they should never be seen on screen. It really is that simple.
By that logic, you might as well include the creation of Arda, since if Iluvatar hadn't bothered, there wouldn't be a middle earth to set the story in. You might as well include the rise and fall of Numenor, without which there would be no Arnor or Gondor.
When I say it is meaningless, I mean that it is meaningless from a narrative perspective - i.e. it doesn't need to be shown to make the story work. Nobody needs to know that Sauron was in Mirkwood for a bit before being driven out and going back to Mordor. It just isn't important. There are many other battles and events in the history of middle earth that had to happen to make the story of LotR work, but they don't need to be shown in the movies. Even the creation of the rings only gets a few seconds.
Good fiction has to balance the amount of exposition it gives. Stuffing in pointless details just to show off the extent of your world is generally considered bad.
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
Then what about various scenes from the actual trilogy that weren't in the books? All those scenes between Aragorn and Arwen were fanfiction in your book? (I'll accept Aragorn going off the cliff as fanfictiony though)
I admit that it is only an adaptation of the Hobbit and if they had decided to put in everything then I would be annoyed, but the thing is, it's only one or two scenes. It probably will take up maybe fifteen minutes of screentime at the most. It ties in with the story of The Hobbit and isn't exactly out of place.
I understand that you have a problem with it being added in and I accept that, but I really don't have a problem with it. I'm just going to wait to see it when the movie comes out to judge it. If it really is out of place and shouldn't have been there, I'll more than likely come over to your side. But at the moment, we don't know how it will be handled, so I'm going to hold out the hope that it will be handled well.
Re: The Hobbit Trailer
Of course.