Second Hobbit Trailer [SPOILERS!!!!]

[Frelga]

I thought it was pretty tacky, too. Not up to Rivendell's usual decoration standards.

What IS that thing that falls on them at the end?

[Alatar]

The Great Goblin

[Elentári]

Now that is much better! Interspersing the teaser trailer with all the action does make such a difference...plus the music, of course!

I was prepared for far more PJ improvement versus "trusting Tolkien" this time around, with the DG and WC subplots, but things like the apparent "humour" of the Great Goblin falling on top of the Dwarves..."You got to be joking!"

Still, all the hallmark ingredients that made LotR so incredible look to be present, so I'm trying to keep my enthusiasm up, really I am, and I know the family and I will enjoy the movies immensely for what they are.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

It doesn't bother me, honestly. [Edit: referring to the Rivendell crystal block, thingee]

I really, really don't like Gollum's "I wasn't talking to you" thing. I don't mind some split personality for Gollum (I think an argument can be made that it is present in the book, though not so pronounced as in LOTR, which itself was greatly ramped up in the films). But it seems too much to be an adaptation of their own work, rather than an adaptation of Tolkien's. Hopefully when I see the full scene it will be less annoying.

I'm also hoping that the placement of the "you've got to be joking" is a product of trailer-editing and that it won't appear like that in the films. I noticed that waaimasjien removed that it was much better. Similarly, I really hope that the pauses in Bilbo's dialog about his visitors is a product of trailer-editing. That really seems off to me.

[kzer_za]

Maybe Bilbo's really busy keeping the dwarves under control in that scene?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Here's another one, made by cameragod of TORN.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fdy8au4O ... e=youtu.be

I personally like the first one a lot better, but they are both great efforts that give a better sense of the potential balance of the film of epic and lighthearted.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Regarding the crystal table, someone at TORN pointed out that it actually goes does through the ground and comes out the other side.

Look here

Personally, I think it is pretty cool, contrary to the opinion expressed by others.

[yovargas]

I'm with Teremia on thinking it looks tacky, just for the record.

[Teremia]

I'm still going to see the movie, though.

[halplm]

VtF, I think you think everything is cool

I didn't notice much of the sets being bad, that might get touched up before the movie comes out. I'm just really not liking the dwarves... which is an important element .

[Primula Baggins]

I'm not arguing exactly, since it's a matter of personal taste, but I for one am glad that not all the dwarves are as heavily made up and masked with prosthetics as Gimli was. In LotR he was, unfortunately, comic relief much of the time, and in The Hobbit we need to understand that the dwarves are much more than that. For me, seeing more of the actors' faces will help a lot.

There is also more to presenting a nonhuman culture understandably than what the actors are wearing, or how bumpy their foreheads are. There is an awful lot of the portrayal of Dwarves that we haven't seen yet. I think some of what we have seen (the singing in particular) is promising.

But that's just my usual blind hopefulness.

[Frelga]

I like less than half of the dwarves half as much as they deserve.

[halplm]

Frelga wins.

[Holbytla]

Voronwë the Faithful wrote:

But it seems too much to be an adaptation of their own work, rather than an adaptation of Tolkien's.

I think that is exactly the way to phrase it. There are more than a few instances where I felt that way.

The crystal thing hasn't bothered me yet, but if it is on screen in the movie for any length, it may.

What has stood out for me so far was the ring turning into an "O" in hobbit at the end. Maybe I am reading into it, but that smacked of a statement being made. Maybe it is only for promotional purposes, but I get the feeling that the ring is going to play a larger part than it should.

Maybe Tolkien would have liked to have the benefit of hindsight and maybe accentuating the ring is the right thing to do for the story, but that makes these films prequels to LOTR and not the Hobbit.

Which is fine. I just would have liked to have seen the Hobbit as the Hobbit.

missed the ingredients that made Tolkien's work so special

Those being? Not disagreeing with you, but a statement like that, as the years have demonstrated, cannot go unexplicated.

I have a lot of words typed up, but in the end they are all very subjective and don't really answer your question.

Saying that PJ missed the ingredients isn't accurate. Many of the ingredients were there. PJ, in my mind, just seems to have fallen short on tone in places, and in some places it just didn't feel like Tolkien to me.


I doubt that I could ever articulate what I really mean and really feel.
For me it is that whole porn and US Supreme Court argument. I couldn't ever define it, but I know it when I see it.


There is an overall tone to every story, be it a short story, novel, screenplay, play, song, poem, verbalization or any method of storytelling.
Beyond the details and facts of the story, there is a "between the lines", "over the top", "implied", expressed etc. method of engendering "meaning" to the reader, viewer or listener.

That tone is of course mitigated by whom is viewing and who is displaying, but isn't and shouldn't be ever completely devoid of its original intent if it to be considered a success at storytelling or in this case adaptation.

Of course there are exceptions and avant-garde interpretations of subjects, but I dare anyone to suggest PJ wasn't basically attempting to make films that weren't adaptations of Tolkien's works.

PJ was attempting adaptation at some level, but I have always had the feeling that his interpretation focused on sets, props and design details rather than plot focus, tone of the story or message.

That doesn't give any specifics and really doesn't answer your question, but is better than the subjective gobbledygook I wrote.

[Primula Baggins]

Great post, Holby.

[eborr]

I thought it was ok and will motivate me to go see the film so as far as a trailer is concerned - job done.

[Elentári]

Re: the crystal thingy, I think it's okay, too...and anyone else noticed the giant statue carved out of the cliff face above it? The figure is holding a shield which looks almost as though the moonlight might hit it and be concentrated onto the crystal...

I also like the little "rill" carved so ornately into the floor behind the figures around the crystal - in the high res images you can see the water running through the design before cascading off the edge of the cliff!

[Alatar]

I doubt it will be with Dredd. I saw Dredd last weekend (fab by the way) and all the trailers were 18 rated Horror/Suspense movies.

Shows how much I know...

By now we’ve all probably seen the new Hobbit trailer scores of times on our computers. Many have even streamed it 20 or 30 times on their big screen TVs, including all four alternate endings (ahem). But, there’s nothing like seeing it first hand on the big screen as I can now attest. Having just returned from seeing Dredd 3-D (well worth the price of admission, IMHO), I’m elated to say that the Hobbit trailer *is* playing in front of it, it played in 3-D and it was AWESOME!!!! Of course, the amount of additional detail one can see on the big screen goes without saying, but the colors, dialogue and sound were also enhanced enough to make any geek squeal with glee (as the rest of the movie-goers can attest). The 3-D was also amazing – not overdone, but enough to feel like I was being transported to Middle-earth.

For the record, I live in the Denver area and went to an AMC theater. As we get reports about other movies it’s playing with, we’ll update this story. If you’re wondering how you’re ever going to make it to December 14th, I highly recommend trying to see the trailer in theaters. Then again, maybe that just makes it worse! (No.. really.. SEE IT)!

[axordil]

PJ, in my mind, just seems to have fallen short on tone in places, and in some places it just didn't feel like Tolkien to me.

I can't argue with that, because I can list about half-a-dozen moments where the tone or feel didn't work for me off the top of my head. Whether my list is as long or even similar to yours or anyone else's is another issue...though I suspect there are probably a handful of bits that almost all of us who had read the stories before squirm at. Scrubbing bubb, er, Army of the Dead, anyone?

The question is whether the moments where he got it wrong (subjectively) spoil the moments where he got it right (again, subjectively). That's more than just simple accounting, of course: a lot of little "cools" can be undone by a big "urgh." But I think it works both ways--there are things that are SO right they help me overlook the smaller irksome bits.

But I also think it's a mistake to go into any adaptation with a checklist. I more or less did that with FOTR the first viewing and was deeply ambivalent. The second viewing, once I'd gotten that out of my system, let me judge it more holistically.

On that score--which includes balancing things like plot and character changes against the ravenous sense of detail throughout, and taking into consideration what works on page vs what works on screen--I remain a fan. In a way I'm actually a little more excited now about TH.

Alatar-

Well, I'd been thinking about seeing Dredd anyway... I'll report if I do tonight.

[halplm]

I think it's the ents being hasty that does the whole thing in for me. That's about the point I felt physically ill the first time I watched it... there was no coming back from that. It showed that PJ fundamentally misunderstood the world Tolkien had created. It's also the point I get to when reading the books where I lose my interest to continue since then.

For The Hobbit, I feel like I'm already there .