Hobbit Trailer

[Arataniello]

Aratan,

Well, no. The Maia and the Valar (the arch angles) originally lived in the center of Earth on the Island of Almaren under the light of the two great lamps Helcar and Ringil. The first war with Melkor/Morgoth so wracked the Earth that Aman (Valinor) was seperated from Middle-Earth by Belagaer (the Sundering Seas). After the lamps were destroyed by Melkor/Morgoth the Valar and the Maia who remained loyal to the Valar fled to Aman (Valinor) They raised the Pelori on their Eastern borders as a fence against Melkor/Morgoth and then Yavanna created the Two Trees to give light to Aman.

Yes yes, there is absolutely no way you can possibly outgeek me on matters Tolkien.

[Revan Baratheon]

If you dislike Tolkien so much why are you interested in the film? And try to sound more greatful that people have taken their time to

explain some very basic facts that are easily attainable by the simple action of reading a book.

Lol i like the movies but the books were quite boring..i read 5 pages and left it cause at that time(before i saw the movies in 2010) i had no fucking idea what the guy was talking about in the prologue:concerning hobbits

I guess its cause i started directly from lotr..and for the record,i have read asoiaf and HP and other fantasy stuff,so ive no problem in reading fantasy which is interesting and compelling

BTW: i suggest u see my previous replies before considering me ungrateful,i thanked the guy twice for letting me know all that stuff

[Howdyphillip]

Lol i like the movies but the books were quite boring..i read 5 pages and left it cause at that time(before i saw the movies in 2010) i had no fucking idea what the guy was talking about in the prologue:concerning hobbits

I guess its cause i started directly from lotr..and for the record,i have read asoiaf and HP and other fantasy stuff,so ive no problem in reading fantasy which is interesting and compelling

BTW: i suggest u see my previous replies before considering me ungrateful,i thanked the guy twice for letting me know all that stuff

. This just hurts my heart... I am truly sorry that you weren’t in a place in life to truly love and appreciate the greatness that is Tolkien

[Revan Baratheon]

. This just hurts my heart... I am truly sorry that you weren’t in a place in life to truly love and appreciate the greatness that is Tolkien

Well i tried to read it at like 12 so i probably didnt understand lotr.

[Pebble thats Stubby]

Lol i like the movies but the books were quite boring..i read 5 pages and left it cause at that time(before i saw the movies in 2010) i had no fucking idea what the guy was talking about in the prologue:concerning hobbits

I guess its cause i started directly from lotr..and for the record,i have read asoiaf and HP and other fantasy stuff,so ive no problem in reading fantasy which is interesting and compelling

BTW: i suggest u see my previous replies before considering me ungrateful,i thanked the guy twice for letting me know all that stuff

I really feel the need to correct you now. I am not a Guy.

Your Welcome. But you really should try to read the Hobbit. If only so you can tell me how many times Bilbo wishes he was back home with the kettle on.

Thank you everyone else for your corrections/ clarifications, its been a very long time since I read the Silmarilion - like 20 years.

[Lyanna Stark]

Lol i like the movies but the books were quite boring..i read 5 pages and left it cause at that time(before i saw the movies in 2010) i had no fucking idea what the guy was talking about in the prologue:concerning hobbits

I guess its cause i started directly from lotr..and for the record,i have read asoiaf and HP and other fantasy stuff,so ive no problem in reading fantasy which is interesting and compelling

BTW: i suggest u see my previous replies before considering me ungrateful,i thanked the guy twice for letting me know all that stuff

How can you tell if the books were boring if you lated 5 or 12 pages? That is hardly enough reading to make a good judgement.

If you are unused to more old fashioned writing styles it will probably also go completely over your head. That's not a fault of the book though, that is just that you can't grasp it or you are simply too lazy.

Having legit grasps about Tolkien regarding setting, religion and other things are fine. Saying that they are "tedious" because you could not be bothered to read them, let alone check the wiki page is just trolling.

[Skipshot]

Aratan,

Well, no. The Maia and the Valar (the arch angles) originally lived in the center of Earth on the Island of Almaren under the light of the two great lamps Helcar and Ringil.

I think their names were Illuin and Ormal, actually ;)

Pedantry aside, the trailer looks amazing! I can't wait.

Edit: Looks like Helcar and Ringil were the pillars holding up the lamps. I didn't know even those had names!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Skipshot,

I should have remembered that the fall of Helcar formed an inland sea ofthe same name. It makes sense that it's named after the pillar not the lamp.

[Myrddin]

So, one of the actors has sort of spilled when the first movie ends. Not really a spoiler, but I'll tag it anyway.

Evangeline Lilley is playing a Mirkwood elf, captain of their guard or something, and says she'll appear toward the end of the first movie.

http://insidemovies....l-steel-hobbit/

SO, I guess the cliff hanger is Bilbo sneaking around the elf king's home, trying to figure out how to free the dwarves.

[Greywolf2375]

And just another reason to look forward to this...

Billy Connolly.

http://www.imdb.com/news/ni22486770/

[GoodGuyA]

Evangeline Lilley is playing a Mirkwood elf, captain of their guard or something, and says she'll appear toward the end of the first movie.

http://insidemovies....l-steel-hobbit/

SO, I guess the cliff hanger is Bilbo sneaking around the elf king's home, trying to figure out how to free the dwarves.

Could also be the barrels, really. I imagine them adding a lot of stuff in Lake Town because of the absolute lack of characterization to it in the book. Bard is one of the worst examples of Tolkien not really understanding how to characterize and emphasize important bits in a story. That's why I don't mind new characters being added, since that's really how you get an audience to properly pay attention and care about the conflict. The Hobbit by itself has a really small cast of on-screen characters, so expansion of the story is essential.

[Calibandar]

I stumbled upon this interesting little interview from just a few months ago with the venerable Christopher Lee:

He notes that he has concluded his own filming for the two films ( which he calls "bits and pieces" ), and points out that it will show that Saruman was still a force for good in those days. It was also interesting that he notes that Radagast actually has quite a lot to do in these films, and that he plays an very important part in them.

Speaking of Saruman, I always loved this somewhat changed version of the Fellowship's passing of Mount Caradhras, with Saruman in his power.

[Aximand]

Patrick Rothfuss did a blog post which is mostly about the Hobbit. I think it is pretty interesting, and slightly graphic, even if I don't entirely agree. Check it out!

[Calibandar]

Well, he makes good points. This:

I can tell in my bones that the movie is going to be chock full of scenes that were never in the original story. I’m not talking about a little extra dialogue here and there. I’m talking about completely invented cutaway scenes that stuff more action in, and subplots that were only barely alluded to in the book. My off-the-cuff prediction? At least 20 minutes worth.

is pretty much what I am expecting as well. For these movies you really need to put off any Purist hats you have, because Jackson is definitly going to include scenes that were not in the book. He already did that quite a lot in the LoTR films, really major scenes that were invented, and now that he is bringing in Non-Hobbit material anyway, you can expect much more of that. But I am actually quite excited about that, as I do think that The Hobbit on it's own, simply doesn't come close to the LoTR books, and could use with a bit of spicing up, and I am extremely curious about the White Council vs Necromancer scenes, which as we have discussed, is intended as a major subplot, and all the comments since from Jackson and the cast bear that out. Of course, how is Jackson going to fill that in? The evidence of the Lord of the Rings films shows that he is clearly someone who can surprise both positively and negativily with his "spicing up". And also, we can expect invented scenes that have nothing to do with the Dol Guldur storyline.

[mormont]

I think that The Hobbit, taken on its own terms, is at least as successful - I'd argue even more so - than LOTR. It does exactly what Tolkien intended it to do, and it does it in a way that IMO is absolutely unmatched. It's my favourite children's book, bar none.

But what is unarguable is that what it does is quite different to LOTR. It's very much more self-contained, and very much more intended for a younger audience. So I can see that in filming The Hobbit as a sequel of sorts to the three LOTR movies, you definitely need to change the tone and add to the story. I have no qualms about that at all, in principle. Whether I'll have qualms about any of the changes that are actually made in the event remains to be seen.

[Happy Ent]

20 extra minutes per movie filled with sentient trees seems like a very good solution.

I look forward to the battle of the six armies.

[The Real Will]

Patrick Rothfuss did a blog post which is mostly about the Hobbit. I think it is pretty interesting, and slightly graphic, even if I don't entirely agree. Check it out!

Someone needs to reassure Mr. Rothfuss that if anyone offers to buy the film or television rights to Name of the Wind they probably won't be looking to create an adaptation that needs to justify a $300 million investment. Not that I don't agree with some of his complaints, my biggest problems with the Lord of the Rings films were too much action and a tendency toward melodrama. Nevertheless, I think they were great films, and I think they were the best adaptations that were likely to get made. Could someone have written a better screenplay, less blockbuster, but still equally grand, harnessing the subtle tension and richness that made the book fantastic? Probably. Would it get greenlit? Probably not. Words like "subtle", and "drama", and "richness" are not words that studio executives like to hear anywhere near the words "three hundred million".

I often hear people bemoaning the business of film making, and it does have it's unfortunate downsides, but it really isn't as unfortunate or as unfair as it's often portrayed. The only films that reliably return multiple hundreds of millions of dollars are blockbusters and kids animations (and, apparently, Forest Gump :dunno: ), and people are not going to give you huge amounts of money if there isn't at least some indication that they're going to get it back (and preferably a considerable chunk besides). So, this is what any Lord of the Rings film was always going to be, action packed and full of melodrama to appeal to widest possible audience. Unfortunately, Lord of the Rings is not the kind of film that can be filmed guerrilla style with $10,000 from the back of a kombi van on your mate's Canon 5D...Well, it could be, but I'd only watch it if I was drunk, and I doubt HE would be have as pleased with the sentient trees.

Which raises the other option that Rothfuss hints at. That of not making it at all. I just don't believe that the world would be a better place without Jackson's films. I don't believe his adaptation has crowded out a better version that would have been made otherwise; as I said, I don't believe there really is a better version that would have been greenlit. And, as even Rothfuss acknowledges, they were great films.

I'm also a little bemused that anyone can watch that Hobbit trailer and not be struck first by the authenticity and respect for the source material. Yes, it clearly has extra bits, but we've known about those for ages, and they are all at least expansions of plotlines suggested in the book. I struggle to find any connection between a Hobbit film and discovering that my high school friend and first love had decided to make a name for herself in adult cinema. One is a great thing, the other probably is not.

As I said, Name of the Wind is probably won't suffer from the same issues if it were ever adapted. It could be done in a much more reasonable budgetary bracket. One that brings it's own perils, but also one that can afford to be slightly less mainstream.

[Happy Ent]

Unfortunately, Lord of the Rings is not the kind of film that can be filmed guerrilla style with $10,000 from the back of a kombi van on your mate's Canon 5D...Well, it could be, but I'd only watch it if I was drunk, and I doubt HE would be have as pleased with the sentient trees.

Well, whenever me and my friends make guerilla style films, the sentient trees are the only thing that actually looks good.

[Happy Ent]

As I said, Name of the Wind is probably won't suffer from the same issues if it were ever adapted. It could be done in a much more reasonable budgetary bracket.

(Thanks to superhuman effort and civility, succeeds in not making a comparison between Name of the Wind and girls I met in high school.)

[GoodGuyA]

Which raises the other option that Rothfuss hints at. That of not making it at all. I just don't believe that the world would be a better place without Jackson's films. I don't believe his adaptation has crowded out a better version that would have been made otherwise; as I said, I don't believe there really is a better version that would have been greenlit. And, as even Rothfuss acknowledges, they were great films.

Totally agreed there. Whether or not you think the movies truly captured the spirit and magnitude of the books (I did), it's impossible to deny that they were monuments in filmmaking. They're the exact kind of movies that I want to see. Expertly paced, perfect amount of comedic flow, developed characters where need be, grand artistry serving the story, and not a single truly bad performance. Again, they're certainly not perfect films, but they're the best representation of what Hollywood should be looking for in mass appeal. Actual thought behind the movies. Subtlety and excitement can work together because LOTR was made by artisans of their respective crafts.

I'm also a little bemused that anyone can watch that Hobbit trailer and not be struck first by the authenticity and respect for the source material. Yes, it clearly has extra bits, but we've known about those for ages, and they are all at least expansions of plotlines suggested in the book.

I'm fully behind the whole expansion. What separates a good adaptation from just an okay one is the understanding of the source material, and how better to exemplify that difference than representing things in a unique perspective? The Hobbit, I always thought, was a perfect one movie affair. It's paced just right for a 2 hour film. The fact that we actually get an improvement on the haphazard storytelling, however, did necessitate this sort of expansion. I've said before that Tolkien did not at all get character that well, and character can fill a lot of time if done correctly like Jackson has demonstrated in several films.

Just think about it, there's precisely one action scene at the beginning of the movie before the big one. How to fill that time and not make Rivendell meaningless? Have Elrond actually be meaningful as a character, throw in Galadriel as well. I honestly think that if Tolkien had looked to re-edit the Hobbit in hindsight, he would have at least done something different if only to add half a book's worth of appendicies to explain what was going on. The Gandalf and the White Council bit, I think, is absolute brilliance regardless of your standing on the faithfulness. Cannot wait to see Gandalf, the great debater.