Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

New Hobbit Trailer Online

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie News >> New Hobbit Trailer Online Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
New Hobbit Trailer Online - 19/9/2012 3:22:18 PM   
Empire Admin

 

Posts: 28903
Joined: 29/6/2005
Post your comments on this article
Post #: 1
- 19/9/2012 3:22:18 PM   
Sargan

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 26/7/2011
This looks amazing!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 2
Sold - 19/9/2012 3:41:45 PM   
ChesterCopperpot

 

Posts: 50
Joined: 24/6/2008
Looks brilliant. My cynicism is slowly being swept away. Can't wait.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 3
Erm... - 19/9/2012 5:56:38 PM   
Porter

 

Posts: 119
Joined: 13/12/2005
Is it blasphemous to admit that, despite being a huge LOTR fan and general Tolkien enthusiast, this trailer left me cold. I remember when I saw FOTR trailer for the 1st time. Gave me tingles! This...didn't. Hope the film's better.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 4
Sold indeed! - 19/9/2012 6:00:20 PM   
olirog

 

Posts: 142
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Ludlow
This is going to live up to the LOTR trilogy!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 5
Funny - 19/9/2012 6:09:28 PM   
adzman

 

Posts: 34
Joined: 19/12/2006
I like the fact it's obviously has some humour. Something I always felt missing from LOTR

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 6
Watched it again... - 19/9/2012 7:07:27 PM   
Porter

 

Posts: 119
Joined: 13/12/2005
Beginning to get in the spirit of things. Did find it amusing, at least.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 7
- 19/9/2012 8:26:57 PM   
Jayseph

 

Posts: 49
Joined: 8/2/2008
Looks pretty nice. Still wish it was Tom Hollander instead of Martin Freeman though.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 8
Hmmm - 19/9/2012 10:00:20 PM   
7eke


Posts: 155
Joined: 21/7/2007
This trailer makes it all look a bit to clean and shiney compared to lotr trilogy, defo a whiff of harry potter cgi.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 9
Alternate Endings - 19/9/2012 11:00:25 PM   
witters

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 14/11/2005
From: Quakertown, PA, USA
http://www.thehobbit.com/index.html#content=choose-your-moment

You can use this to have 5 different endings to the new trailer.

I like it, but where did the music from the previous trailer go?

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 10
Can't go wrong! - 20/9/2012 12:05:49 AM   
dannyfletch


Posts: 625
Joined: 25/5/2008
From: Bromley
With Jackson at the helm, the excellent Martin Freeman onboard and all of the ingredients from the Rings trilogy there is no doubt this is gonna rock!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 11
RE: New Hobbit Trailer Online - 20/9/2012 2:46:04 AM   
My name is Legion

 

Posts: 84
Joined: 1/2/2008
I've no doubt that Jackson will once again entertain the masses. Fair play to him.

However he is not truly translating Tolkien's work. Anyone who has studied and genuinely understands Tolkien's world already knows this.

I do not hold it against him, he's worked hard and done his best. Can't ask for more than that, even if he has come up short.

My only problem with the success of his previous adaption, and his obvious forthcoming success is that I will never see Tolkien's vision on screen. Which is a shame, but his work will always be there, and will survive after I, and Jackson's adaptations are long forgotten.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 12
- 20/9/2012 8:45:49 AM   
Whistler


Posts: 2953
Joined: 22/11/2006
Since when do trailers have alternate endings?

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 13
it's a fucking rip-off - 20/9/2012 9:14:56 AM   
scrotal

 

Posts: 2
Joined: 4/2/2009
it is a rip off, a huge book like LOTR had a trilogy assigned to it.. and a little book like the hobbit ALSO has a trilogy to it.. it sucks. It does not need 3 films to do it justice as apart from being a smaller book it is also a very light read when compared to the LOTR books.


(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 14
Is it just me - 20/9/2012 9:59:39 AM   
Mc Bovril

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 21/12/2005
Or do those prosthetics (mostly on the dwarves) look a bit.... welll... they look crap don't they? like REALLY crap.
Don't get me wrong, I want this to be great, but that trailer leaves me pretty cold and the 3 films thing seems to be milking it for all its worth.

Goodwill diminishing.......

(in reply to scrotal)
Post #: 15
Peter Jackson can fuck off - 20/9/2012 10:23:54 AM   
BatSpider


Posts: 170
Joined: 6/7/2010
Goodwill vanished after the last 30 minutes of ROTK, and 10,427 minutes of King Kong.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 16
Looks brilliant! - 20/9/2012 11:46:53 AM   
croninja

 

Posts: 73
Joined: 15/12/2005
From: Limerick, Ireland
This trailer is a dramatic improvement over the last one, with plenty of action and a lot more humour than Lord of the Rings! Epic, majestic and stirring stuff!
Honestly, I can't understand all the negativity. If Jackson genuinely has enough good material to fill three movies, then why not? Yes, the book is incredibly short but he's included a huge amount of extra material from the Appendices and a whole new storyline about the Necromancer. I don't feel "ripped off" by having to pay for 3 cinema tickets instead of 2. There's so much shit in the cinemas that we should be grateful for an extended cut of Middle Earth. What else are you all going to see in the cinemas in July 2014? G.I. Joe 3? Something starring Adam Sandler?
If you don't want to see three Hobbit movies, then don't. But there are millions of people who do. Let Jackson have his multiple endings. I want to see them. Anyone who doesn't can leave the cinema early and beat the traffic. Jackson has earned his endings. A little respect for his achievements!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 17
RE: Looks brilliant! - 20/9/2012 11:59:38 AM   
My name is Legion

 

Posts: 84
Joined: 1/2/2008

quote:

ORIGINAL: croninja
Yes, the book is incredibly short but he's included a huge amount of extra material from the Appendices and a whole new storyline about the Necromancer


You've never read the Appendices, have you?

No need to answer, it's a rhetorical question as I can tell that you haven't.

(in reply to croninja)
Post #: 18
RE: RE: Looks brilliant! - 20/9/2012 1:08:52 PM   
croninja

 

Posts: 73
Joined: 15/12/2005
From: Limerick, Ireland
Haters gonna hate.
The Appendices are a laborious read, but have plenty of material that could be awesome if interwoven with the narrative, rather than recounted after the fact.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 19
RE: Looks brilliant! - 20/9/2012 1:13:53 PM   
Imrahill

 

Posts: 10
Joined: 5/6/2010
I agree that it looks good and that the Hobbit as a book is short however having read the books and the appendices and the encyclopedias I think that there is more than enough material to do 3 films, and to the posts that say that we are not getting Tolkiens vision of the story well we arent,Tolien himself said to make the books as they are into a film was impossible so do the biographers.Most of the filling in these films will come from the appendices.I for one am looking forward to the films.

(in reply to My name is Legion)
Post #: 20
RE: Looks brilliant! - 20/9/2012 1:42:04 PM   
Neilloc

 

Posts: 5
Joined: 3/10/2006
I'm really getting annoyed at this stage with all the people who seem to have made their mind up that because they've gone for 3 movies, it's automatically a cynical exercise and therefore the movies will be rubbish. Why not wait to see the movies before deciding if it was a good decision??

Even if people don't think they should have to wait, there's a number of reasons why the argument doesn't hold up.

Firstly, even if it was a studio decision, motivated by money, it doesn't mean the films will be crap! Lots of films which were motivated by money turned out to be excellent (you could make a strong argument that the Avengers, or Toy Story 3, or the Dark Knight Rises, or Terminator 2 were all pushed by studios rather than directors/writers), and lots that weren't have been awful, so it doesn't follow one way or another.

Secondly, and more importantly, if any of these whiners had actually read the Hobbit in any detail they'd realise that the fact that it's physically a smaller book than LOTR does not mean that less events or 'episodes' happen. I re-read the Hobbit recently in anticipation of the movies, and one of the things that struck me is just how much actually happens. The big difference between the Hobbit and the LOTR is simply that Tolkien describes the events in far greater detail in LOTR. If he had written the Hobbit with the same drawn-out descriptive prose, it could well have ended up the same length. For this reason, I for one was delighted when I heard about the 3rd movie, because now nothing will have to be cut!

Imagine trying to fit the whole of the Hobbit into 1 movie. Beorn would have to be cut. The elves sequence would probably be 3 mins long. The unexpected party, the trolls, Rivendell, the Goblins and the Riddle Game would all have to happen in the first 30 mins! THAT WOULD BE SACRILEGE PEOPLE!!!

I think they could've fit the contents of the book into 2 long movies and done them justice. But once you flesh out the White Council elements, including adding Radagast, add a serious back-story to Dale (and they've spent a lot of time shooting at the Dale set, so you can be guaranteed this will be a lot bigger in the movie than the book) and then add a few more elements from the Appendices, you can easily fill three 2-hr movies.

Right, Rant over. Time to re-watch the trailer...

(in reply to Imrahill)
Post #: 21
Gollum FTW! - 20/9/2012 2:18:01 PM   
HighwayJoe


Posts: 105
Joined: 3/2/2009
From: Largo, MD
Best one, hands-down: Gollum's "Shut up!" scene. Though I'll have to stop watching trailers now... too many good scenes/jokes being spoiled.

Only two months and way too many days left to go, people! Huzzah indeed.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 22
RE: Gollum FTW! - 20/9/2012 2:57:21 PM   
Bad Ash

 

Posts: 57
Joined: 13/2/2012
Looks amazing! Can't wait.

I am however firmly in the cynical circle when it comes to the decision to split it into three films instead of two. A money making ploy and nowt else!

_____________________________

I know where the bastard sleeps!

(in reply to HighwayJoe)
Post #: 23
RE: New Hobbit Trailer Online - 20/9/2012 2:58:35 PM   
My name is Legion

 

Posts: 84
Joined: 1/2/2008
I can't be bothered with petty arguments, I've already said that Jackson did his best, it's just simply a fact that he does not understand Tolkien.

Want me to prove it?

OK, I only need one example,

The Mouth of Sauron, at no point in the book is he described as a monster with a big, disgusting mouth. Jackson took it literally, and thought it would be "cool" to do this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK8KjVbHO9c

Much more importantly, he had Aragorn lop his head off. This is the extent of their confrontation in the book.

'Is there anyone in this rout with authority to treat with me?' he asked. 'Or indeed with wit to understand me? Not thou at least!' he mocked, turning to Aragorn with scorn. 'It needs more to make a king than a piece of elvish glass, or a rabble such as this. Why, any brigand of the hills can show as good a following!'

Aragorn said naught in answer, but he took the other's eye and held it, and for a moment they strove thus; but soon, though Aragorn did not stir nor move hand to weapon, the other quailed and gave back as if menaced with a blow. 'I am a herald and ambassador, and may not be assailed!' he cried.

'Where such laws hold,' said Gandalf, 'it is also the custom for ambassadors to use less insolence. But no one has threatened you. You have naught to fear from us, until your errand is done. But unless your master has come to new wisdom, then with all his servants you will be in great peril.'


Yes, there is menace and tension in the scene, but he rides away unharmed. Why? Because the Heir of Isildur, the rightful King would never act in such a crude manner. However despicable the "Mouth" was, it was not a fight, there are rules, he would not and did not break them. Again though, Jackson thought it would be "cool" if he cut his head off, showing again that he doesn't get it.

That's just one example, there's a lot more. I'm sure many will dismiss me as purist, that's fine, I am however right, and that's a fact.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 24
RE: New Hobbit Trailer Online - 20/9/2012 5:10:49 PM   
Neilloc

 

Posts: 5
Joined: 3/10/2006
'My name is Legion', I can't argue with you on the Mouth of Sauron scene, think PJ dropped the ball there. In fact, I could name at least a half dozen other major departures from the book, mainly in ROTK, that pissed me off too (Pippin having to trick Treebeard into realising what Saruman was up to, the dead coming to Minas Tirith, Frodo sending Sam home at Cirith Ungol etc etc).

However, I do feel that 95% of the decisions they made were great, and I think you have to appreciate certain things just wouldn't work on screen as well as they do on paper. The films have to work as standalone pieces, so I think PJ did the best job he could have. He was as loyal to Tolkien as humanly possible, and I'm optimistic he'll do the same again this time out.

Quite enjoying this argument though. I should post here more often...

(in reply to My name is Legion)
Post #: 25
I'll Rent It - 21/9/2012 9:58:09 AM   
burtbondy


Posts: 164
Joined: 16/11/2007
The Hobbits were everything that was shit about LOTR. So we will have 3 long movie's made up of all the worsts parts of LOTR.

(in reply to Neilloc)
Post #: 26
RE: New Hobbit Trailer Online - 21/9/2012 10:09:57 AM   
burtbondy


Posts: 164
Joined: 16/11/2007

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilloc

'My name is Legion', I can't argue with you on the Mouth of Sauron scene, think PJ dropped the ball there. In fact, I could name at least a half dozen other major departures from the book, mainly in ROTK, that pissed me off too (Pippin having to trick Treebeard into realising what Saruman was up to, the dead coming to Minas Tirith, Frodo sending Sam home at Cirith Ungol etc etc).

However, I do feel that 95% of the decisions they made were great, and I think you have to appreciate certain things just wouldn't work on screen as well as they do on paper. The films have to work as standalone pieces, so I think PJ did the best job he could have. He was as loyal to Tolkien as humanly possible, and I'm optimistic he'll do the same again this time out.

Quite enjoying this argument though. I should post here more often...

They turned Frodo into an asshole.

(in reply to Neilloc)
Post #: 27
Book Adaptation - 21/9/2012 3:56:12 PM   
adzman

 

Posts: 34
Joined: 19/12/2006
I understand all the arguments about the film being faithful to the book but you have to consider if a direct translation would work as well as a film, a completely different medium.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 28
Book Adaptation - 21/9/2012 5:24:31 PM   
adzman

 

Posts: 34
Joined: 19/12/2006
I understand all the arguments about the film being faithful to the book but you have to consider if a direct translation would work as well as a film, a completely different medium.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 29
RE: New Hobbit Trailer Online - 21/9/2012 8:29:22 PM   
My name is Legion

 

Posts: 84
Joined: 1/2/2008
Appreciate the civil tone, but I'm sorry I really do have to make a point. No offence.

I've heard the book to film translation argument countless times, and it just does not apply in this case.

Now I have back up that statement. I'll be as succinct as possible.

Before and after I became a "film buff" I was a voracious reader (not so much these days). Seriously, I used to go through at least three novels a week. The thing is, I read many books which have been adapted to film that are considered "classics" before seeing the films, and vice versa. The order in which I first experienced the story has never affected my judgment. I'll give you three examples.

"The Godfather", a friend gave me the book before I'd seen the film, and I liked it a lot. Then I watched the film and I thought it was a major improvement, regardless of the changes made. Film is better.

"The Exorcist", I watched the film first and consider it a great, however the book is superior. If you're a fan, read the book, then watch the film right after you finish, you'll be shocked at how much the story is diminished in Friedkin's work. Book is better.

"A Clockwork Orange", I'm including this for balance. I first saw this when I was eleven (I know!), didn't understand what the fuck was going on. A few years later I read the book, it's a masterpiece, then I watched the film again, it's a masterpiece, I can't make a call on this one. They're equal.

Back to Tolkien. I read "The Lord of the Rings", "The Hobbit" and "The Silmarillion" many times before Jackson made his first trilogy. Shit, I even read "The History of Middle-earth", every volume, at least twice each (I told you I read a lot). Now this will sound horribly arrogant, but I understand Tolkien's world, Jackson doesn't. This has nothing to do with parts being cut out or added, it's to do with the fact that apart from a few elements Jackson got pretty much everything bar the basic plot wrong.

OK, I'll stop there as I've a feeling most won't really give a shit what I have to say, and that's cool. Different strokes...

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie News >> New Hobbit Trailer Online Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.063