Slashdot Mirror


Hobbit Film Trailer Posted Online

bonch writes "The trailer for the film adaptation of The Hobbit by Peter Jackson has been posted online by ComingSoon. The film, due December 14, 2012, is subtitled "An Unexpected Journey" and will be followed by a second film in 2013 that will tie the story with the Lord of the Rings trilogy." I'm glad to hear that they've kept the Misty Mountains song and I'll be greatly disappointed if an updated version of "Funny Little Things" or "Down, Down to Goblin Town" doesn't make the cut also.

257 comments

  1. QuickTime! by antdude · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/thehobbit/

    Tip to downoad: wget -U "QuickTime/7.6.2" http://trailers.apple.com/movies/wb/thedarkknightrises/darkknightrises-tlr1_h1080p.mov to download the 148 MOV file to play in your QT compatible player. :)

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    1. Re:QuickTime! by tehcyder · · Score: 0

      Why would anyone voluntarily watch something in QT format, other than to remain faithful to the Apple Overlords?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    2. Re:QuickTime! by antdude · · Score: 1

      To watch 1080p movie trailers/clips. :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    3. Re:QuickTime! by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      If it helps, you can think of it as an MP4 container that's been oddly named for no other reason than to force QuickTime on people who don't know any better.

  2. RTFA or WTFT by Missing.Matter · · Score: 4, Informative

    The film, due December 14, 2012, is subtitled There And Back Again

    It's subtitled An Unexpected Journey. There and Back Again is the next one

  3. Songs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Based on the Film Blogs from PJ and crew, they are def trying to keep the original songs, if anyone else is concerned about that...

    1. Re:Songs by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      I'm concerned about the songs. I skipped over them after I read the hobbit the first time.

      Frankly, though, I'm more concerned about the casting of Freeman: I've a nagging concern that I'll spend a significant portion of the movie looking at his "confused" face. I wonder if the casting people realise there are more than a half-dozen British actors out there...

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    2. Re:Songs by KhabaLox · · Score: 5, Funny

      As long as they include the Leonord Nimoy song, perhaps as accompaniment to a blooper reel during the credits, I'll be happy.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    3. Re:Songs by markdavis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      OMG, I want to rip my eyes out and my ears off! I really could have gone the rest of my life without having been exposed to THAT!

    4. Re:Songs by Teancum · · Score: 1

      That is an absolute must-have for the Middle-Earth Holiday Special!

      If only they could get George Lucas to produce it, like his previous masterpiece

      BTW, thank you for the link.... it was a great laugh!

    5. Re:Songs by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      LOTR was criticized for cutting out the songs. Maybe this is Jackson's attempt to battle his insecurity against criticism.

    6. Re:Songs by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      There may be more than a half-dozen British actors out there, but there are THOUSANDS of American actors, yet Hollywood keeps casting the same people.

      Besides, I think Freeman is a perfect fit. He looks like Frodo, so it makes sense.

  4. bad info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The film is subtitled "An Unexpected Journey". The second part in 2013 will be subtitled "There and Back Again". It is just the story of The Hobbit split into two movies, the idea of a second "bridge" movie to connect it with LOTR was abandoned years ago.

    Other than that, the story is accurate.

    1. Re:bad info by Moryath · · Score: 0

      That's a good thing, though. The Rankin/Bass one, while nice, cut approximately 2/3 of the original story out.

      Of course, if they pull another Scouring of the Shire / Tom Bombadil fiasco messing the book up, I'm going to be upset.

    2. Re:bad info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, if they pull another Scouring of the Shire / Tom Bombadil fiasco messing the book up, I'm going to be upset.

      This didn't bother me so much. What really bothered me was when they had Sam Gamgee not wear the One ring when rescuing Frodo. They even did the scenes where he wore the ring but decided to not have him wear it in the movie.

    3. Re:bad info by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course, if they pull another Scouring of the Shire / Tom Bombadil fiasco messing the book up, I'm going to be upset.

      Then I would prepare to be upset.

      Many things work very well in books and very poorly in movies, and subplots unrelated to the main plot are one of them. The encounter with Tom Bombadil, the scouring of the Shire, and the encounter with the barrow-wights were all correctly left out of the movie adaptation. While you and I may wish to see these tales portrayed on screen, doing so would detract from the pacing of a movie. Pacing and tempo are much more delicate in a movie compared to a novel. I would much rather see a great movie whose story was imperfectly adapted than a perfect translation which would doubtless be all but unwatchable. I argue that the Hobbit will similarly either significantly diverge from the novel or be a supremely awful movie.

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    4. Re:bad info by An+Ominous+Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Cutting scenes and merging characters is one thing, making arbitrary changes in the material you've kept is another. And even worse is wasting the removal of canon by adding stupid new material.

    5. Re:bad info by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      The Rankin/Bass one, while nice, cut approximately 2/3 of the original story out.

      How old were you when you saw that cartoon? I thought it was terrible, but I've never been a fan of that particular cartoon house. Having grown up on the old Warner Brothers cartoons, Rankin/Bass just looks cheesy and cheap. ALL their cartoons.

      Did you see the Ralph Bakshi version of LOTR? Not bad, but they left out WAY too much... and were planning a sequel but the original movie bombed.

    6. Re:bad info by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Of course, if they pull another Scouring of the Shire / Tom Bombadil fiasco messing the book up, I'm going to be upset.

      Then I would prepare to be upset.

      Many things work very well in books and very poorly in movies, and subplots unrelated to the main plot are one of them. The encounter with Tom Bombadil, the scouring of the Shire, and the encounter with the barrow-wights were all correctly left out of the movie adaptation. While you and I may wish to see these tales portrayed on screen, doing so would detract from the pacing of a movie. Pacing and tempo are much more delicate in a movie compared to a novel. I would much rather see a great movie whose story was imperfectly adapted than a perfect translation which would doubtless be all but unwatchable. I argue that the Hobbit will similarly either significantly diverge from the novel or be a supremely awful movie.

      Then they should have had someone else kill the Lord of the Nazgul, then. Having Merry the Hobbit kill the 2nd most powerful evil being in the movie by stabbing him in the knee just came out non-nonsensical without the barrow-wight backstory.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    7. Re:bad info by Raenex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Many things work very well in books and very poorly in movies, and subplots unrelated to the main plot are one of them. The encounter with Tom Bombadil, the scouring of the Shire, and the encounter with the barrow-wights were all correctly left out of the movie adaptation.

      I'll even go one further: The film should have ended after Frodo and Sam were saved. It was already a long movie (200 minutes), and it would have been a nice point to end it. I remember sitting in the theater feeling somewhat exhausted and exasperated as the movie dragged on after the climax.

      What's funny is that the Wikipedia article says, "The ending is streamlined so as not to include the Scouring of the Shire, which was always seen by the screenwriters as anti-climactic.[9]" I agree, but they didn't go far enough!

    8. Re:bad info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, so I agree it follows if you cut out the barrow wights, then there's no point to the whole Tom Bombadil part.. (except maybe to introduce the trees)... but, that then makes Merry's successful attack on the witch king seem kind of strange... like, *why* does his sword even hurt it? But then, that wasn't too bad, since Eowyn just sort of stabbed him in the face immediately afterword and was fine...

      But removing the Scouring of the Shire really bugged me... instead of a heroic homecoming (remember, the other hobbits didn't care about their previous adventures, only their exploits in the Shire), left it seeming that Merry, Pippin and Sam were all outcasts. Frodo being an outcast (and his taking ill) makes his departure make sense. But the whole thing left me with this sense of depression for the hobbits since they basically came to a place that wasn't really their home anymore, instead of saving their home from the evils of Saruman and integrating themselves back into their society by helping rebuild it...

    9. Re:bad info by vux984 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Then they should have had someone else kill the Lord of the Nazgul, then.

      Er. In the movie Merry's poke distracts him for a moment. In the novels Merry's poke with the barrow blade breaks the spell that made him nearly invincible.

      But in both cases it was Eowyn that actually killed him, and fulfilled the prophecy that "no man" could kill him by being a woman. (with or without the aid of a hobbit) The Witch king was taken aback that he was facing a woman in both the novel and movie as well.

      It was enough for the internal consistency of the movie that a woman had to slay the Witch King.

    10. Re:bad info by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Leaving Tom Bombadil out is understandable, but leaving the scouring of the Shire out was a critical mistake. It is the capstone of the characters' journey, it demonstrates (dramatically) that they are greatly changed by their experiences. It's a crucial part of the story.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    11. Re:bad info by Lanteran · · Score: 4, Funny

      I used to be a powerful evil being, but then I took a dagger to the knee...

      --
      "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
    12. Re:bad info by SlippyToad · · Score: 1

      Ugh. The LOTR cartoon by Ralph Bashki was a complete abomination. He didn't animate that movie. He had actors play the scenes and then he traced over their images. Some of the laziest, sloppiest work I've ever seen from an artist. Bashki was also responsible for the abortion that was Cool World which I think was the last time anyone bothered giving that idiot a budget.

      I would say that Bashki probably set the LOTR franchise back a couple of decades in popularity with just how horrible of a movie it was. There's a reason it bombed -- it was nothing but a vanity project anyway. He had zero respect for the material he was handling.

      --
      One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
    13. Re:bad info by geekoid · · Score: 1

      haha, I would totally put the video after the credits run.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    14. Re:bad info by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are right about TB, barrow-wight.probably. The Scouring? Removing it destroys the whole fucking point of the books.
      No no, lets keep telling people 'wars happen over THERE, never at home.'

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    15. Re:bad info by Tran · · Score: 1

      It sucked for other reasons than the use of rotoscoping.

    16. Re:bad info by geekoid · · Score: 1

      whoa whoa whoa. Don't be band mouthing cool world.'

      Hos 'Hobbit' OTOH, uhg. horrid...

      Where the is a whip, there's a way!

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    17. Re:bad info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I see that part of the story as illustrating how much they all changed and grew. i would have preferred that to what they did put in the end.

    18. Re:bad info by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      It sucked for other reasons AND the use of rotoscoping.

    19. Re:bad info by helix2301 · · Score: 1

      What a week for movie trailers first The Dark Night Rises now The Hobbit. This should be quite an interesting year for movies The new GI Joe, The Avengers, Battleship, The Hunter Games and soon the new Underworld great time to be a movie fan.

    20. Re:bad info by Gibgezr · · Score: 2

      Personally, I thought the roto-scoping was fine: it lent a dark air to the film, and seemed quite effective. Would you have preferred a flashamation Scooby-Doo version? Ya, I thought not.

    21. Re:bad info by Mogster · · Score: 1

      I disagree...

      The Bombadil/Barrow-wight sub-plot was easily left out. It made for a good read but it's exclusion didn't detract from the overall story.

      The Scouring of the Shire however is a major part of the story and ends the War of the Ring back in the Shire amongst Hobbits. Remember the LotR is a story about Hobbits. It says so in the prologue. And JRRT actually stated the TSofS was one of the earliest parts of the book to be written.

      To my mind the movies focused too much on Aragorn/Arwin which was only a sub-story in the books.

      I did enjoy the movies - however I feel PJ, et al missed the overall point.

      --
      ACK NAK RST
    22. Re:bad info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...leaving the scouring of the Shire out was a critical mistake. It is the capstone of the characters' journey...

      What he said...

      The Hobbits were always the main characters (IIRC, Tolkien was targeting children). The scouring is pretty critical to their character development. I can understand why the screenwriters wanted to shorten the movie, but their belief that the scouring was superfluous indicates to me that they didn't understand the main characters of the story they were adapting.

      Although, I think there is enough there someone could make another movie out of it. Although maybe in only 90-120 minutes, I'd enjoy that though.

    23. Re:bad info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to be a powerful evil being. I still am, but I used to be too.

    24. Re:bad info by catmistake · · Score: 1

      Then they should have had someone else kill the Lord of the Nazgul, then.

      Radagast! But have it be by accident!
      feverishly scribbling rewrites

    25. Re:bad info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't see how it could be regarded as "anti-climactic" when it's a nice plot twist (surprise: everything isn't fine when they get back home to the Shire), and I've always thought The Scouring of the Shire is pretty much the entire point of the LOTR. Yes, it may seem like the destruction of the One Ring was the main point of the books, but if that were the case then it would be an ordinary quest. What made the ending of the LOTR books different was not only the completion of a great quest, but the hobbits returned to the Shire completely transformed by it. Thus, because they had grown so much (figuratively :-)), they handled the "trouble" in their little part of the world on their own. Even Gandalf stayed out of it, presumably because he knew they could handle it. Tolkien's books are some kind of allegory on how a comfortable life can be threatened by events far away from your home, and that if you are complacent about it, that trouble will eventually arrive on your happy little village doorstep. Heck, given recent history you'd think they would go out of their way to include that message. Weirdly, some of that ominous plot thread was shown in the movie (the foreshadowing in Galadriel's mirror), but then the logical conclusion to it never happened at the end.

      I can accept all the other changes, but I just don't buy the claim that the Scouring of the Shire couldn't have been done effectively or that it wouldn't be worth doing it. Yeah, the movie was really long, but they spent loads of time with all sorts of melodramatic stuff that wasn't necessary or that could have been shortened.

    26. Re:bad info by ratguy · · Score: 1

      For me, a few of the emotional highlights of the film was seeing the hobbit's return to the shire (showing how much they had changed) and Sam and Rosie's wedding. The film would have been extremely disappointing without these scenes.

    27. Re:bad info by illtud · · Score: 1

      Ugh. The LOTR cartoon by Ralph Bashki was a complete abomination. He didn't animate that movie. He had actors play the scenes and then he traced over their images.

      aka rotoscoping, which I thought was very effective in that film, and has a long history which didn't end with Bashki's LOTR.

    28. Re:bad info by banemc · · Score: 2

      The Scouring of the Shire was actually one of my favourite parts of Return of the King. The final battle felt really overstretched, like Tolkien was having trouble keeping track of his characters by that point, and it was good to return to a more well constructed chapter. It also resolves the character arcs for Saruman and Wormtongue - something the movie (even the extended edition) failed to do. I would definitely have been happier to see that as the finale rather than twenty minutes of 'everyone gets old and gets on a boat'.

      --
      >> Bane Macarbe "Take Chances" http://zombieomg.blogspot.com/
    29. Re:bad info by don.g · · Score: 1

      I wanted to see the scouring of the shire -- like banemc, it's one of my favourite bits too. The soft focus hobbits smiling and wedding scenes and Gandalf and the boats and all that -- not needed at all. Ending with Frodo and Sam on the side of Mt Doom, with evil vanquished, was the right thing to do. The epilogue added nothing, and it was 20 minutes long! (Yes, I saw a midnight showing when it came out, and yes, I timed that bit.)

      --
      Pretend that something especially witty is here. Thanks.
    30. Re:bad info by qubezz · · Score: 1

      So how many endings will The Hobbit get?

    31. Re:bad info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they'd made Lord of the Rings true to the books, then we'd have had 45 hours of people sitting around smoking, singing and telling stories, and about 5 minutes of action, most of which would be a character sitting there describing for us what's happening, and then singing about it. We wouldn't even see Saruman until after the Ring is destroyed.

    32. Re:bad info by leucadiadude · · Score: 1

      A dagger that was made by people with the knowledge to undo the spell binding me together. The dagger broke the spell that made his body obey his will, then Eowyn killed him. May I suggest you re-read the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. This dagger came from a barrow wight mound.

    33. Re:bad info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Frodo travelling into the West is a metaphor for his death. The hidden story within LotR is that Frodo and Gollum (in the LotR) is the same character. Frodo never really returns to the shire. He is changed by the ring into the creature Gollum, and dies at Mount Doom. Although the story describes his rescue, he nonetheless travels west to Valinor, the location of the Halls of Mandros.

    34. Re:bad info by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

      Oh, Mitch Hedberg, how I miss thee...

    35. Re:bad info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Scouring WAS in the movies. It was part the Frodo's vision in Galadriels mirror.

      Jesus. The LOTR trilogy is the greatest movie making achievement of ALL TIME.

      Fucking whiners, sheesh.

      Showing that vision to Frodo SAYS: WARS HAPPEN AT HOME.

      Are you fucking RETARDED?!?!?! Did you even WATCH the movies? WTF....

    36. Re:bad info by _Shad0w_ · · Score: 1

      Leaving Tom Bombadil out wasn't really a problem; even Tolkien accepted that he added nothing to the story and didn't really fit with the rest of the setting, iirc. He's the character most frequently dropped in adaptations.

      Dropping the Scourging of the Shire was a piss poor move though. It's not like they can claim it would make the film too long, given how long it was already.

      --

      Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.

    37. Re:bad info by Tom · · Score: 1

      which was always seen by the screenwriters as anti-climactic.[9]" I agree, but they didn't go far enough!

      Climax isn't a function of content, but of drama. Depending on how you tell the story, the scouring of the Shire could well have been a very climatic point. It is not unknown for good stories to have more than one climax.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    38. Re:bad info by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Bashki was also responsible for the abortion that was Cool World

      Heh, I liked that movie. His LOTR was a disapointment, but when when he made it they didn't have the tools Peter Jackson did.

    39. Re:bad info by FranktehReaver · · Score: 1

      No that wasn't what they were talking about. That was subliminal advertising telling Frodo to enlist in the cause farther. Actually fighting to remove a invading force from your home was the point of the end of the books. Where all the other Hobbits were scared and beaten into submission the main characters returned hardened and take leadership and rally the hobbits against their foe.

    40. Re:bad info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      better than being a powerful Greek warrior and taking an arrow to the ankle

    41. Re:bad info by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Jesus. The LOTR trilogy is the greatest movie making achievement of ALL TIME.

      My bias detector just broke.

    42. Re:bad info by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      You know that. I know that. A film goer not familiar with the books would not know that, as the Barrow-wight story was left out entirely.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    43. Re:bad info by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      Sadly, the Rankin/Bass version of Return of the King was closer to the books than Jackson's version.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    44. Re:bad info by partiklehead · · Score: 1

      To say that rotoscoping live action is in anyway lazy, especially considering the time in which Bashki did it, you have to be somebody who has never done rotoscoping. It's a gargantuan, time-consuming task.
      IMO also the only thing that made this bad movie visually/technically interesting.

      disclaimer: IAAFM

      --
      disclaimer: I am a you row pee'n
    45. Re:bad info by Lanteran · · Score: 1

      It was a joke; skyrim reference & meme. I've read the book dozens of times over, plus the Silmarillion.

      --
      "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
    46. Re:bad info by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I couldn't get through the Silmarillion, is seemed it just kept repeating the same story over and over again with minor changes.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    47. Re:bad info by Lanteran · · Score: 1

      It was quite dull to be perfectly honest, but it explains a lot of the lore. I haven't read it dozens of times though, just once.

      --
      "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
  5. DOH! by antdude · · Score: 4, Informative

    Oops! Wrong URL in my previous reply. I meant to say:

    http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/thehobbit/

    Tip to downoad: wget -U "QuickTime/7.6.2" http://trailers.apple.com/movies/wb/thehobbit1/thehobbit-tlr1_h1080p.mov to download the 173 MOV file to play it locally in your QT compatible player. :)

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    1. Re:DOH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're both good trailers anyway :)

      Muchas gracias.

    2. Re:DOH! by _0xd0ad · · Score: 2

      In FF, use the User Agent Switcher add-on to set the user agent to "QuickTime/7.6.2", or go to about:config and create a general.useragent.override String with a value of "QuickTime/7.6.2". Once the user agent is set, right-click and save link as.

    3. Re:DOH! by antdude · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Lots of trailers recently. I hope Prometheus is good too since I love Aliens (just the first two movies though) series.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    4. Re:DOH! by frisket · · Score: 0

      I particularly liked the shot of the inside of Bag End with the dehumidifier (or perhaps an A/C unit or even a vacuum cleaner ;-) Perhaps this is the droid we've been looking for...

    5. Re:DOH! by Calos · · Score: 1

      You guys DO realize there's a drop-down with the choice to download 480p, 720p, 1080p, and iPhone/iPod (whatever that means), right?

      --
      I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
    6. Re:DOH! by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Did you click it? I did. It sent me to http://trailers.apple.com/ and didn't download anything.

      Probably I need the QuickTime plugin. Screw that, I'm not installing QuickTime.

    7. Re:DOH! by antdude · · Score: 1

      That is because the web site checks for QT user agents. :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    8. Re:DOH! by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but it makes no sense to have a "Download" link that doesn't work.

    9. Re:DOH! by antdude · · Score: 1

      Oh you want it to say "you must have QuickTime/iTunes installed to download" message? Yeah then.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    10. Re:DOH! by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'd expect a "Download" link to actually point to a URL that will load no matter what your user agent string is. But I'm not installing the QuickTime plugin to see whether the "Download" link actually works when QuickTime is installed.

    11. Re:DOH! by antdude · · Score: 0

      It's Apple. What did you expect? :( I use QT Lite to only have QT plugins and its downloader. In Linux/Debian, I don't have a QT plugin so I get what you see. :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    12. Re:DOH! by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      It's Apple. What did you expect?

      No argument there.

    13. Re:DOH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Forget that, just go here or here.

      The trailer is only 24fps, not the 48fps it was filmed at. Who knows what they'll do for the Blu-ray release.

    14. Re:DOH! by whatever3003 · · Score: 1

      "-U Quicktime" is good enough.

      --
      "Those who do not want to imitate anything, produce nothing." -- Salvador Dali
    15. Re:DOH! by antdude · · Score: 1

      Oooh, good one. I guess they don't care what versions you have. :)

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    16. Re:DOH! by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      It's Apple. What did you expect?

      Expensive shit that is all flash and no substance?

      (hell, they are still about 2 years behind on video cards...)

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  6. Its back... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    My precious... they brought back my precious

  7. Bah, humbug. by Slartibartfast · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm sorry. I tried. I really did. I *wanted* to like the LoTR movies -- and I certainly didn't expect them to keep everything that was in the books -- I mean, we're talking 1500+ pages! But *changing* storyline, that, I had issues with. Complete timelines, and storylines, were altered, for no effect that I could see. As someone who reads LoTR every 18 months or so, it was Just Wrong to see a series crafted as carefully as Tolkien did, twisted to meet whatever it was that Jackson was attempting to do. So. Don't. Care.

    And, well, I'll be (pleasantly!) surprised if I don't wind up feeling much the same about The Hobbit.

    *sigh*

    1. Re:Bah, humbug. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yay good for you.

    2. Re:Bah, humbug. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I like LOTR a lot too, but reading it every 18 months? Branch out some. There's lots of good stuff out there my friend.

    3. Re:Bah, humbug. by SteveFoerster · · Score: 4, Funny

      Great -- one fewer person in front of me in line for the opening day 12:01am showing of The Hobbit, then.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    4. Re:Bah, humbug. by grimmjeeper · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Self proclaimed "purists" always fascinate me. I find it amazing that truly passionate followers of a particular story can discuss so much of someone else's work in such detail. And so many times, they can have legendary arguments over how some stretches of the work should be interpreted. It's almost always guaranteed that when a story is converted from book to film, all of the self proclaimed purists universally dismiss it as tripe. They all have their own individual reasons, but it's rare to see any of them approve of the work, no matter how good it may be.

      Here's my suggestion. If you really want to see a movie that stays within the bounds you have arbitrarily set on a story written by someone else, why don't you make it yourself.

    5. Re:Bah, humbug. by iceaxe · · Score: 1

      Yep, there's The Hobbit (of course) and The Silmarillion, and The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, and The Children of Hurin, and The Unfinished Tales, and The History of Middle Earth (12 volumes).

      That should keep you busy for a longer cycle than 18 months before starting over.

      --
      WALSTIB!
    6. Re:Bah, humbug. by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But your still going to watch it right?

    7. Re:Bah, humbug. by crow · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The books were written by an eyewitness many years after the events. The movie script is based on records from other eyewitnesses, so it's not surprising that they would remember events differently (or even correct mistakes from the books). Of course, the books are one source for the movie script, but by no means the only one.

    8. Re:Bah, humbug. by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not to mention the purists tend to focus on the book as published, ie after the editors of the book decided to chop out 100 pages for length, and change some words, change where chapters end etc. So they are being pure to what already is an interpretation of what the author originally intended. Perhaps the editor did a good job and made the book better, perhaps not but getting all cult like protective of an artist's vision when what was published usually isn't the artist's vision is kind of silly to me.

    9. Re:Bah, humbug. by forkfail · · Score: 1

      It's kind of funny, though, how so many directors think that they can tell a story better than the author who wrote the original. Especially when the reason the story was chosen to be made into a movie was that it had stood the test of time, and was so well loved by so many.

      I'm not talking about condensing portions, or omitting scenes for time. I'm talking about major plot deviations that seem to serve no purpose at all. For example, having the Elves show up en masse at Helms Deep. No reason for the change, it didn't make any point that would have been made with otherwise omitted scenes, and was simply distracting from the movies.

      --
      Check your premises.
    10. Re:Bah, humbug. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I agree with you. The LOTR films were epic and impressive, but I would only give them a B. I'm okay with understandable plot changes -- in fact, I can't even remember the entire plots of the books, which I read not long before viewing each film, because the books themselves tend to drag on in many places (oops, I'm not supposed to say that) -- but the doses of saccharine Hollywood melodrama and pretentious posturing really bummed me out. Many effects were stunning, particularly the Balrog. Some of the color/contrast effects just looked like a cheap Final Cut or Premiere filter to me and some animations, like the wargs, disappointed me. I especially disliked the 2-dimensionality of the combat (one slice and down goes a large orc in armor) where they could have added the feel of real grit and labor. Instead, what got more attention was the bromance between Frodo and Sam. I like both actors and they're well-cast, but I tired of Frodo's eyes and overemphasized emotions (my Dad saw the first flick with me and actually said out loud in the cinema "Couldn't they have made Frodo a little less bug-eyed?") as well as the redundant "I made a promise and I aim ta keep it, Master Frodo!" spiel. Gollum was also overexposed, with not only monologue but a dialogue. I also like Ian McKellen but Gandalf is clearly described as having a witchy nose in the books. The biggest crime of all was not asking Jim Carrey to star as Tom Bombadil.

      As for this new pair of movies, seems obvious to me that they're splitting it and dragging it out to milk the money. I may wait until someone else buys the DVD and borrow it. In other words: MEH!!!

    11. Re:Bah, humbug. by haystor · · Score: 1

      +1 pure awesome, made my day.

      --
      t
    12. Re:Bah, humbug. by KhabaLox · · Score: 2

      According to Gary Oldman, John Le Carré told the filmmakers of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy that the book is the book and the film is the film. If you make a shitty film, my book will still be good.

      I'm a big fan of PK Dick's short stories, though I wouldn't consider myself a Purist. I really enjoyed Total Recall and The Adjustment Bureau. Minority Report was OK to fair. Imposters was bad, and Screamers I never saw, though it's source, Second Variety is one of my favorites (simply because it was the "cover story" of the first volume of his stories I bought - the one with the little girl with the teddy bear on the cover).

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    13. Re:Bah, humbug. by alexo · · Score: 2

      Next time, consider the movie to be very loosely based on the events in the book and watch it for it's own sake.

    14. Re:Bah, humbug. by thomasw_lrd · · Score: 1

      Oh you mean like having Liv Tyler save the Hobbits, just because she was a semi-famous actress? I never even bothered to watch the last two movies.

      Except for when Eowyn killed the Nazgul lord, which is the coolest part of any book ever.

    15. Re:Bah, humbug. by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Have you ever seen a single movie that followed the book more than rudimentarily? I don't think one exists. Look at True Grit -- two movies from the same book, mostly following the book's dialogue, both lacking elements and inserting elements that weren't in the book (for example, in the book Rooster only had one eye, but he didn't wear an eye patch).

      Or worse, look at I, Robot. A hot Susan Calvin? WTF? It kinda sorta a little bit copied (kinda) one of the stories in the book ("Little Lost Robot"), but GEES.

      It had probably been five or more years since I'd read the books, but I was happy. No, I didn't like "Nobody tosses a dwarf!" and missed Tom Bombadil, and thought it was insane that Gimli and the elf went with Aragorn into the cave, and that the book left what happened there to the imagination, but mostly the movies looked like the images I had in my head while reading the book.

      It was closer to its book than any other I've read and seen. I was happy with it.

    16. Re:Bah, humbug. by CommieLib · · Score: 2

      Have you ever seen a single movie that followed the book more than rudimentarily?

      Starship Troopers?

      --
      If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
    17. Re:Bah, humbug. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was fine with the changes in the LOTR story that were deemed necessary for the movies ... except for "The Scouring of the Shire" and everything related to its removal (like Saruman getting killed much earlier). I mean, what the hell was the LOTR about if not for the hobbits to stand up for themselves at the end? After doing such a fantastic job otherwise, what the hell, Jackson? He did a fantastic job, and I expected differences, but what the hell? Why ditch that ONE core part instead of something else?

      So, I'm not nearly as negative as you are, and overall I'm impressed with Jackson's LOTR adaptation, but I can also see your point.

    18. Re:Bah, humbug. by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2

      Oh you mean like having Liv Tyler save the Hobbits, just because she was a semi-famous actress? I never even bothered to watch the last two movies.

      Except for when Eowyn killed the Nazgul lord, which is the coolest part of any book ever.

      It didn't actually happen like that in the book. Merry had discovered an ancient sword in the barrow-wight's lair (and even completely left out of the movies). It was one of the few weapons that could actually harm the Witch-king, and when Merry stabbed him in the back of the knee with it, it damaged him so badly that anyone could have finished him off.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    19. Re:Bah, humbug. by Raenex · · Score: 0, Troll

      Wow, your dad's an annoying dick. Save the comments for after the movie.

    20. Re:Bah, humbug. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For LOTR, Jackson made one decent movie followed by 2 shitty ones. Diverting from the book wasn't the problem, that the movies became boring when doing so was!

      The only upcoming film I'm interested in at all is Prometheus (trailer tommorow) and I'm expecting a fraudulent von daniken shitfest there!

    21. Re:Bah, humbug. by BlortHorc · · Score: 2

      Have you ever seen a single movie that followed the book more than rudimentarily?

      Starship Troopers?

      No, he meant followed the book accurately, not followed in a rudimentary fashion.

      Seriously, in the middle of re-reading it now, it is very little like the namesake movie(s).

    22. Re:Bah, humbug. by Pope · · Score: 1

      "Screamers" was pretty decent as far as PKD movies go, though the FX look a bit dated (as early CGI is wont to do). Worth a rental, IMO. "Adjustment Bureau" captured the paranoia vibe of a PKD story very well.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    23. Re:Bah, humbug. by grimmjeeper · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Hell, Tolkien spent decades changing things in his creation of Middle Earth. I wonder how many arbitrary choices were made without any real thought just to satisfy a publishing deadline. I wonder how many purists consider those to be cannon inviolable. And on the other side of that coin, I wonder how many people completely gloss over changes to parts that Tolkien spent decades getting "just right".

      I just don't get why people get so hung up in the detail that they can't see the whole picture. But they do and they're happy to tell anyone who will listen.

      In the end, the books were amazing. The movies were good too. They flowed reasonably well given the medium in which they were presented. Getting hung up on the details just seems petty to me. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Either you're going to like it or you're not.

    24. Re:Bah, humbug. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agree wholeheartedly.

    25. Re:Bah, humbug. by kqs · · Score: 2

      It didn't actually happen like that in the book. Merry had discovered an ancient sword in the barrow-wight's lair (and even completely left out of the movies). It was one of the few weapons that could actually harm the Witch-king, and when Merry stabbed him in the back of the knee with it, it damaged him so badly that anyone could have finished him off.

      You are completely correct, and even more completely wrong.

      We're geeks, so we like to worry about which magic item could work against which foe. Tolkien cared about people. The important part of that (amazingly awesome) scene in the book was that all of the mighty warrior "men" (well, those left standing) fled in fear from the Witch-king. Only the lowly hobbit and the woman had the heart to face the Witch-king, and not just face but strike at him. What killed the Witch-king? Logically, a magic sword. Thematically, heart and courage.

      The movie did just fine. The "woman not a man" thing resonates more these days than in Tolkien's time, and the hobbit's critical role is a bit diminished, but overall it nicely captures what (I think) Tolkien wanted. Just like the myths which Tolkien was emulating, the magic weapon wasn't the important bit, but the hand/heart who wielded the weapon.

      Many of the changes in the movie bother me, but overall it condensed and translated an insanely complicated plot down to something which people who are not Tolkien scholars can enjoy.

    26. Re:Bah, humbug. by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, there were changes I can understand (like cutting out Tom Bombadil... disappointing, but it is a long side trip that essentially amounts to nothing). Then there's bullshit like changing Faramir from "I wouldn't take it if I found it by the side of the road" to "So you have this magic ring? I'm kidnapping you and taking it!"

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    27. Re:Bah, humbug. by tmarsh86 · · Score: 1

      Surely, you jest. The film and the book are miles apart in many key areas, mainly in that Heinlein was serious and Verhoeven was not.

    28. Re:Bah, humbug. by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Merry had discovered an ancient sword in the barrow-wight's lair (and even completely left out of the movies). It was one of the few weapons that could actually harm the Witch-king, and when Merry stabbed him in the back of the knee with it, it damaged him so badly that anyone could have finished him off.

      Well, not by the hand of man...

    29. Re:Bah, humbug. by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Watch A Scanner Darkly. Despite Keanu Reeves, it's actually a pretty good adaptation.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    30. Re:Bah, humbug. by idontgno · · Score: 1

      As someone who reads LoTR every 18 months or so, it was Just Wrong to see a series crafted as carefully as Tolkien did

      Alas, you do your Tolkien-geek cred no service when you call LoTR a "series". Any true student of Tolkien knows that Lord of The Rings is, in fact, a single book split by the original publisher for convenience of publication.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    31. Re:Bah, humbug. by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

      The movie did just fine. The "woman not a man" thing resonates more these days than in Tolkien's time, and the hobbit's critical role is a bit diminished, but overall it nicely captures what (I think) Tolkien wanted. Just like the myths which Tolkien was emulating, the magic weapon wasn't the important bit, but the hand/heart who wielded the weapon.

      Many of the changes in the movie bother me, but overall it condensed and translated an insanely complicated plot down to something which people who are not Tolkien scholars can enjoy.

      That's exactly the dilemma. Do we focus more on the details of the book or the point of the story? Which is, or in this case, would have been more important to the author? I think that the author who told the same story about defeating the evil orks in Isengard with their wheels and gears, wouldn't care so much about the specific sword as he would about the people who wielded it.

    32. Re:Bah, humbug. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      " As someone who reads LoTR every 18 months or so"... ,,, you opinion on the matter is worthless.

      You are clearly OCD, and so it can never be watchable to you.

      You did NOT want to like the movies at all.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    33. Re:Bah, humbug. by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      I didn't mind Arwen's expanded part, because it fixed two problems that any adaptation has to face:

      1. Tolkien's Edwardian Boys Club style, which means virtually no women with a major role in the main plot.
      2. Yet Another Elf Syndrome

      Frankly, telescoping Glorfindel's and Arwen's roles into the character of Arwen was a perfectly sensible decision in my view, almost genius.

      However, the Elves at Helms Deep, and Faramir as Boromir 2.0 was stretching adaptation beyond its limits, IMO.

      Mart

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    34. Re:Bah, humbug. by Mitreya · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Self proclaimed "purists" always fascinate me.

      There is purists and there is purists. I feel that there were a large number of changes that were made -- some of them were quite justified (skipping Tom Bombadil, leaving out Scouring of Shire, replacing Glorfindel with Arwen/Liv Tylor to simplify the plot). However, there was a shocking number of things that were added for no reason whatsoever (the stupid elephant battle, Faramir capturing and dragging along Frodo for a while and then releasing him for no new reasons, Aragorn dragged off by a Warg, Aragorn swaying to Eowyn instead of Arwen, etc).
      I, personally, am upset by the latter changes. I understand cutting out pieces of a long book to make a good movie. I understand simplifying the story by getting rid of some characters (since the list of characters in Tolkien books goes on and on). However, if the movie is well over 3 hours, why do they feel the need to add plotlines that were completely made up, involved out-of-character behavior and were generally pointless?

    35. Re:Bah, humbug. by hawks5999 · · Score: 2

      I like the eyewitness accounts in The Last Ringbearer

    36. Re:Bah, humbug. by thomasw_lrd · · Score: 1

      I ever saw Tolkiens Boys Club. Eowyn, Galadriel, and Tom Bombadils wife all played major roles in the series.

    37. Re:Bah, humbug. by uniquename72 · · Score: 1

      What killed the Witch-king? Logically, a magic sword. Thematically, heart and courage.

      The movie did just fine.

      In that case, why not just make a whole 'nuther movie about "heart and courage" rather than fucking up a story that's already considered a classic just because you feel like it? Hell, why not set it all in present day, remove all magic, and change everyone's name?

      Honestly, I don't care either way -- I haven't seen the movies and barely remember the books. But your argument is ridiculous. A movie version of LoTR should be LoTR; not some other story about "heart and courage."

    38. Re:Bah, humbug. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Chicken Little was the worst book to film adaptation EVER.

      I demanded my money back.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    39. Re:Bah, humbug. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was looking for a way to say it politely, but you are of course correct. Many people get obsessed too easily, missing out too much in other areas of life.
      BTW, the only thing I missed in LoTR were sex scenes.
      Well, I'm kidding, but just a little.

    40. Re:Bah, humbug. by ULTRAJOE · · Score: 1

      comic vs book is a debate for another thread, but Sin City was shot for panel almost 100% spot on

    41. Re:Bah, humbug. by kqs · · Score: 0

      Honestly, I don't care either way -- I haven't seen the movies and barely remember the books. But your argument is ridiculous. A movie version of LoTR should be LoTR; not some other story about "heart and courage."

      So changing it from "ancient northern slightly-magical sword from a barrow-down" to "ancient northern slightly-magical sword which the rangers preserved for time of need" makes it not LoTR? What an amazing shallow view.

      The movie was, all-in-all, closer to the book than 99.9% of adaptations (including ones where the author was involved, like the Game of Thrones mini-series and the Coraline movie). But it really doesn't matter; since you haven't seen it yourself, your opinion is worth exactly as much a non-climatologist's opinion on the details of climate change or my dog's opinion on why the sun comes up every day. I'm not sure why you feel compelled to weigh in on a discussion about the movies, but then I'm not sure why I replied to someone who is speaking out of their rear mouth, so I guess we're even.

    42. Re:Bah, humbug. by Phrogman · · Score: 2

      The film version is nothing like the book version, on multiple levels. When I saw the movie version I hated it. Only by viewing it as a completely separate story can I really enjoy it in and of itself.
      Heinlein was quite serious, Verhoeven made a violent comedy.

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    43. Re:Bah, humbug. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Played major roles? So much so that she's "Tom Bombadil's wife". All she did in the book was look pretty. Goldberry by the way.

      Same with Galadriel.

      My memory is hazy, but isn't much of Eowyn's role hidden behind the fact that the reader isn't "in on the secret" of her pretending to be some young Rohirrim lad?

      Also Faramir in the book is ridiculous. We've got characters such as Gandalf, Aragorn, Galadriel all being afraid of being corrupted by the slightest offer of the ring. In fact, Gandalf talks often about the hardiness of Hobbits, and their simple world view protecting them from the Ring's corruption, yet even Frodo is eventually falls to the Ring's corruption. Not Faramir though, he passes it aside with barely a glance. Why'd they bother to destroy the Ring? No need to risk sneaking it into Mordor, could've just given it to the incorruptible Faramir who would keep it safe from Sauron and never use it.

    44. Re:Bah, humbug. by damnbunni · · Score: 1

      Lonesome Dove followed the book pretty closely. They cut some subplots for length, but not many.

      And it was SIX HOURS long anyway.

    45. Re:Bah, humbug. by oddtodd · · Score: 1

      >> in the book Rooster only had one eye, but he didn't wear an eye patch

      That's because you can't see him in the book, but in the movie, you can, so he wore it while filming. Silly.

      --
      I have plenty of common sense, I just choose to ignore it. -- Calvin
    46. Re:Bah, humbug. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Heinlein was quite serious, Verhoeven made a violent comedy.

      That's a good thing. I read the book a few years back and found myself chuckling at Heinlein's predictions that ending corporal punishment in school would lead to the destruction of America. Then there was that bit where he harangues the reader about how man has no innate moral compass and that you have to beat one into him. (Which is exactly backwards -- science has since shown that the moral compass develops naturally, and the best way to interfere with its development is frequent beatings -- it's a great way to make sociopaths!) Then there was that laughable "disproving" of Marx's labor theory of value. (I'm not a fan of that autocratic douche Marx, but honestly, the dude answered those arguments in the first fucking chapter of Das Kapital. A big-time anti-commie should have known that! The LTV does not apply to things that are not commodities, and don't have utility. It's a statement about the tendency of prices on commodity goods to move inexorably towards the cost of labor required to produce them. The LTV isn't why Marx is wrong.)

        All in all, guys in powered armor squashing bugs is fucking awesome, but so much of that book is crackpottery on an epic scale, I'm glad Verhoeven decided to have some fun with it.

    47. Re:Bah, humbug. by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      Eowyn needed Merry's help to kill off the Witch King; Galadriel had at most a chapter's worth of being the healer of the grief of Gandalf's fall, and Goldberry? Now you're stretching.

      Mart

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    48. Re:Bah, humbug. by cyclomedia · · Score: 1

      re: Faramir, they'd built up this mystery about the ring and how it has great manipulative power over people, specifically humans, and he was supposed to just say "meh"?

      --
      If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
    49. Re:Bah, humbug. by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      I'm sure Mr. Jackson will take your comments to heart as soon as he he lights up his Cohiba with a $100 bill.

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    50. Re:Bah, humbug. by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      Yes! That was one of the most important themes of Tolkien's story: the ring is a seductive power, but it can be resisted.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    51. Re:Bah, humbug. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Of course I can see him in the book. Don't you get pictures and sounds in your head when you read? If you've seen anyone pop their glass eye out you know what Rooster looked like.

    52. Re:Bah, humbug. by stummies · · Score: 1

      Bingo! You just described what drove me nuts about the movies.

    53. Re:Bah, humbug. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      The newer film, from 2010, could easily have CGIed the eye.

    54. Re:Bah, humbug. by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      Starship Troopers?

      Not really. There were some very big changes between the book and the movie, (like the unnecessary romance scene in the movie).

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    55. Re:Bah, humbug. by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Have you ever seen a single movie that followed the book more than rudimentarily?

      No Country for Old Men (for the most part) and Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (Swedish version moreso than the US version). How about the first Harry Potter movie?

    56. Re:Bah, humbug. by BorelHendrake · · Score: 2

      The issue I think centers around why the changes from the book are being made. Sure there are reasons why sections of a book could be shortened or changed to a certain extent for various reasons.

      It is the arbitrary nature of the changes which are annoying. Bree was changed from a friendly welcoming town with various people for the most part living together without issue. In the movie they change Bree into a slum and the Inn into a dive. Was there any reason to do this? No. It was arbitrary. That is what is annoying. People making changes for the sake of making changes. Does it impact the general story? Probably not, but why change it? Tolkien set it a certain way, so why not respect what the man wrote and present it that way.

      There are many examples of where they got so many details of the books just right in the movies, but the butchered so many others that really comes across as a lack of respect. Treebeard's character was changed significantly from the book. Why? To make the Hobbits look more important? That is not what Tolkien presented in his book. So, an arbitrary change was made which significantly changed a character in the book and ruins the character.

      It is as if sections of the movie were re-written by committee, or just changed for the sake of changing something. I think that is why purists get upset. It is these changes which are made which come across as having no respect for the story the author was telling.

    57. Re:Bah, humbug. by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 1

      The Three Musketeers (1960's version)

      --
      Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
    58. Re:Bah, humbug. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I haven't read "No Country" or "Harry Potter"; I'll ask my daughter about Harry. Guess I'll have to make a trip to the library for "No Country", that was a good movie. If the book's half as good it'll still be a good book.

  8. Cartoon by kodiaktau · · Score: 1

    Like others, reading the books brought me into a new world when I was a kid. Unfortunately, though, the original cartoon version of this scared the hell out of me when I was a kid. I wonder if my kids will be scarred from this version?

  9. Oh Mayans. by hawks5999 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Please be wrong.

    1. Re:Oh Mayans. by kodiaktau · · Score: 1

      The good news is that this the first part will release before the apocalypse! Unless the didn't account for very large values of 2.

    2. Re:Oh Mayans. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4th sun to 5th sun. Out of a 6 sun long day. Your actual problem is with the Aztecs who only bothered to carve their calendars to a length of 1 sun, and loop it every ~5000 years.

      Well, unless the Aztecs were right to demand so many human sacrifices, and the sun god won't have enough blood to barter with the underworld for continued fertility of the land...

    3. Re:Oh Mayans. by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      There's one thing I still don't get:

      Why the heck does anybody care about the Mayan calendar?

      I mean, the US is AFAIK overwhelmingly made up of a mix of abrahamic religions. To me it seems that to make the mayan calendar seriously, you'd have to subscribe to their religion, and how many believers in it can there be?

    4. Re:Oh Mayans. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      No, they're right, the world will end next December -- but only as I know it. I'm eligible to retire then. Goodbye cubicle hell, hello retirement heaven!

      Believe me, my retirement won't affect The Hobbit. Hell, I don't even work in the industry.

    5. Re:Oh Mayans. by Wandering+Idiot · · Score: 1

      Because it's ancient, and foreign, and therefore must contain mystic wisdom. That's pretty much it. No, I don't really get it either.

    6. Re:Oh Mayans. by maglor_83 · · Score: 1

      No, it is simply because the Mayan calendar 'ends' soon. If it was an ancient, foreign calendar with mystic wisdom that 'ends' in 5000 years time nobody would give a shit about it.

  10. Re:Broken business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah! Look at all, err, 16 of you.. Shame!

  11. Re:Let the by chispito · · Score: 1

    Flame War commence!

    I realize that trailers don't always give you the tone of the movies they advertise, but this feels too somber and foreboding. The Hobbit should be a rollick.

    --
    The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
  12. This movie is a complete ripoff of LOTR by thatbloke83 · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...I mean seriously! The actors even look the same and they are using some of the same stuff!

    (http://i.imgur.com/e9WwU.jpg)

    1. Re:This movie is a complete ripoff of LOTR by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      That made my day.

  13. Re:Let the by sheehaje · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To me, The Hobbit left more of an impression on me than Lord of the Rings. Maybe because I was younger when I read it, but it always came off more mystical to me. The story isn't all over the place either. As epic as Lord of the Rings was, The Hobbit was more tidy and wasn't too fixated on trying to explain the whole of Middle Earth and it's languages, but more a story that happened in Middle Earth.

    I hope Peter Jackson translates this well, and tells the story for it's own sake. Yes, there are tie ins to the Lord of the Rings, but I hope he doesn't go overboard trying to explain them all, and gives us a film that focuses more on the journey of Bilbo Baggins. The ring was just a magic ring that made anyone who wore it invisible. Gollum was just a cave dweller of a creature, and wasn't revealed to be twisted by power. I know it's hard to keep these things at that when the trilogy was filmed first, but I think to really tell the story properly, these things need to be kept in their places in context of the story... I'm crossing my fingers this happens, because if they get it right, this could be one of my all time favourites.

  14. Not unexpected... by mcgrew · · Score: 1, Funny

    The film, due December 14, 2012, is subtitled "An Unexpected Journey"

    Odd, so was the book.

    1. Re:Not unexpected... by demonbug · · Score: 2

      The film, due December 14, 2012, is subtitled "An Unexpected Journey"

      Odd, so was the book.

      No, the book is subtitled, "There and Back Again, A Hobbit's Journey (or maybe Tale)". The first chapter is titled, "An Unexpected Party," though.

    2. Re:Not unexpected... by tmarsh86 · · Score: 1

      Odd, so was the book.

      Actually, the book was subtitled, "There and Back Again." Chapter 1 was titled, "An Unexpected Journey".

    3. Re:Not unexpected... by knarfling · · Score: 2

      "An Unexpected Journey" was one of the working titles that Bilbo considered as he was writing all his notes.

      --
      Great civilizations have lived and died on false theories. Don't mess up mine with a few facts.
  15. Re:Let the by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

    Okay lets start with a good cross /. topic gripefest(tech and nerd columns): This is quicker hype than the next iDevice gets. One could say prematurely uploaded all over the place.

  16. Honestly, dude, if I could, I would. by Slartibartfast · · Score: 2

    For the Hell of it, let's look at the beginning of the true changes -- Bree. Bree was supposed to be viewed as a welcoming community where "big people" and "little people" got along together, with comfort and self respect. Three significant things happened there: we were introduced to Bill/Bill Ferny, the Nazgul struck, and we met Strider.

    The movie? Bree is a place full of mean-spirited big people; Butterbur is surly; Strider not only doesn't have his birthright sword, but now can't even be identified by Gandalf's letter. Lots was modified to suit Jackson's whims. And that was the merest beginning of things altered.

    Now, see, for most books, honestly, I don't care all that much, so long as the general feel of the book remains. There are even some where I feel the movie version was significantly superior to the book, itself -- Thank You for Smoking is a perfect example. But Tolkien spent *years* trying to get everything right in LoTR; I admire and respect that, and clearly, many others do, as well, else he wouldn't be considered the father of modern-day fantasy. Who is Jackson to alter -- not just abridge -- his story?

    1. Re:Honestly, dude, if I could, I would. by grimmjeeper · · Score: 2

      I get why you don't like the movie. Changes that many don't feel are important still bother you because you feel that they're important. To me, the town of Bree was just a spot where they hooked up with Strider and escaped from the Nazgul. Does it really matter that he doesn't have his sword or Gandalf's letter? To me and many others, no. To you and many others, yes.

      For those who are really passionate about a story and have intimate knowledge of it, any translation to film is going to be a let down. In order to make it commercially viable, they're going to have to cut out a lot, especially given the magnitude of the story they started with. I read that when making decisions about what to cut, they decided that the story of the ring itself was the overriding factor. Everything else was secondary. By doing that they could consolidate other parts that were cool in the book but just used up a lot of valuable screen time. Strider's role in the story didn't change but the time they devoted to it was reduced when they changed around a few things. And in the grand scheme of things, I don't think it was a bad change because it didn't materially affect the story of the ring. That's the kind of compromise you have to live with when you embark on a project like this. Unfortunately for the small minority of "true fans", they will be let down. But there's no other way to get a project of this scale funded and put out there.

    2. Re:Honestly, dude, if I could, I would. by jjohnson · · Score: 2

      There's something wrong with you that you can't enjoy the movies on their own terms. You acknowledge in your first post that the films simply cannot be a literal adaptation of the books, then backslide into complaining about changes when you've already granted that changes were necessary.

      You know what'd be healthy? Being able to separate the books and the movie and yourself from each other. Seriously, you're just way too into the books if you can't enjoy the movies on their own terms (which is how every work should be approached).

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    3. Re:Honestly, dude, if I could, I would. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And who are you to declare "there's something wrong with you"?

      FTR I think the movies were okay and I understood they had to make changes for cinematic reasons. Leaving out Bombadil, good. Leaving out the scouring, okay. I was miffed at things which destroyed the mood, like making Gimli into comic relief, Legolas "surfing" during the fight in Moria, having Gandalf wink before confronting Theoden, and so forth.

    4. Re:Honestly, dude, if I could, I would. by jjohnson · · Score: 2

      Who am I? I'm a guy on the Internet, and my words should be given exactly as much weight as they have consequence.

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    5. Re:Honestly, dude, if I could, I would. by stummies · · Score: 1

      I was even more disappointed in Rivendell. The books (Hobbit and LOTR) describe it as this interesting place full of elves (and occasionally others) with neat stuff in ever nook and around every corner. In the movie it was a big place where Elrond and Arwen lived. I know it doesn't push the plot forward, but couldn't they have hinted that it was more than that? Couldn't they have shown other people there, besides the main characters?

  17. Your point's a valid one, but... by Slartibartfast · · Score: 1

    I kind of feel like I'm cheating when I read stuff compiled/edited/tweaked by Christopher. I hold no opinion for or against him, but, darn it, I read Tolkien to read *JRR* Tolkien. Though there is plenty of other actual JRR stuff -- but let's face it, while he was a fun writer, his pinnacle was Hobbit/LoTR. And that's what I dig into.

  18. Re:Let the by thomasw_lrd · · Score: 1

    All depends on who he gets to play the main charactes. If he gets a semi-hot actress, she will have all kinds of parts that didn't happen.

    IMO, The Hobbit is the perfect book to make into a movie. No convoluted plot lines, and it's not too long that you have to edit too much out. I'm even fine if he leaves out the battle of the five armies, just don't add a bunch a shit that never happened.

  19. Wow.... by w4rl5ck · · Score: 1

    haven't had goosebumps like that during any trailer since the Fellowship one. Just wow.

    May be they should have started with the Hobbit, do the learning steps there, and make an even better LOTR?

    The perfection of the Trilogy (and yes there is only one Triology and its about a ring, not light sabers) ruined cinema for me anyway. There will be nothing like that nine hour special, ever. Ever.

    BTW, I had goosebumps when Vader got his helmet. It's just not a trilogy anymore. And there are situations where it's just OK to go ass to mouth.

    (there are a few movie references in here, blimey, Harry...)

    1. Re:Wow.... by Pope · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nope, "Star Wars" is still a trilogy, 1977, 1980, 1983.

      "The Matrix" on the other hand was a great standalone film. I'm glad they didn't ruin the mystique with any unnecessary sequels.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    2. Re:Wow.... by Mogster · · Score: 2

      "The Matrix" on the other hand was a great standalone film. I'm glad they didn't ruin the mystique with any unnecessary sequels.

      Damn I wish I had mod points right now...
      But I can't decide whether the mod would be +1 Funny or +1 Insightful

      --
      ACK NAK RST
    3. Re:Wow.... by russotto · · Score: 1

      Nope, "Star Wars" is still a trilogy, 1977, 1980, 1983.

      Are you sure? (waves hand) I remember only two.

    4. Re:Wow.... by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 1

      I have to admit that the Star Wars Episode 1 trailer was quite amazing (it still is). After so many years of watching Star Wars over and over there was finally a new Star Wars movie. The trailer, in my opinion, is one of the greatest ever made. I downloaded it over my 14.4 modem (yes, I was stuck with a slow modem but sometimes I borrowed a 28.8 modem) and watched it many times. Of course the film didn't quite live up to the trailer and the hype but the trailer was definitely goose-bump inducing. There are a few others (e.g., LOTR, Saving Private Ryan, Independence Day) too.

    5. Re:Wow.... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It would be +1 Informative, obviously.

    6. Re:Wow.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget Highlander. It's a real shame they never expanded that franchise beyond the one film.

    7. Re:Wow.... by FranktehReaver · · Score: 1

      I loved the Indiana Jones trilogy, not so much the second one compared to the first and third. But man that was a good trilogy.

  20. Damn spoilers by bluestar · · Score: 1

    They gave away the ending

    --
    "The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance." -Thomas Jefferson
  21. Re:Broken business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have pointed out the hypocrisy of slashdot groupthink. Be prepared to be modded down to oblivion.

  22. Re:Let the by mattack2 · · Score: 1

    (I haven't watched the trailer.)

    Well, Frodo is somehow in the movie.. so apparently they did add a bunch of ... stuff...

  23. Excited, but... by Oyjord · · Score: 2

    I really enjoyed the trailer, and I'm very much looking forward to the film. I'll catch a midnight showing, no doubt.

    However....

    Don't some of the dwarves look a bit, well, silly? Is it the make-up? Is it just their design? I'm uncertain. But something doesn't quite fit right with some of their looks.

  24. Ripoff by redemtionboy · · Score: 0

    This is such an obvious LOTR ripoff, please tell me this is a joke. It even looks like the same actor that palys the wizard...has Hollywood honestly come to this?

    1. Re:Ripoff by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Hollywood has been stuck in the rut of rehashing (usually poorly) old ideas and movies for 20 years.

    2. Re:Ripoff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whooooosh

    3. Re:Ripoff by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      Damn straight! Would you believe they named the second LOTR film "The Two Towers"? Obviously pandered to the patriotic American public after 9/11 but it was damn insensitive. There was even a petition to change the name before it came out, but Hollywood never listens. Anything to make a buck!

    4. Re:Ripoff by tmarsh86 · · Score: 2

      Not a very creative troll. This is copy/pasted verbatim from a You Tube comment for the trailer.

    5. Re:Ripoff by redemtionboy · · Score: 1

      Which I left.

    6. Re:Ripoff by geekoid · · Score: 1

      No, they ahve been making book into movie for there entire history. A LOT of really good stuff comes out of Hollywood.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:Ripoff by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      that's it, hollywood just goes "whoooosh" anymore rather than having ideas

    8. Re:Ripoff by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      when they make a book into movie, it's via a lot of tired hackneyed oft-repeated tropes and memes. 98% of hollywood movies are crap

    9. Re:Ripoff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      @A LOT of really good stuff comes out of Hollywood.

      I hope your referring to the movies, because everything else out of Hollywood I could do without.

    10. Re:Ripoff by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      If this is true, you really need to think about your direction in life, that is the most ignorant comment I have seen in a while.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    11. Re:Ripoff by redemtionboy · · Score: 1

      man, some people just can't take a joke

  25. Direction style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aside from the massive changes in plot lines what really bugged me about the LOTR films was that I found my suspense of disbelief being constantly broken by Peter Jackson's showy style of direction. Almost every scene has at least one clever trick that I have to analyze and consider the cinematic brilliance of rather than follow the story. I felt like the man was sitting next to me trying to justify the film rather than just letting me enjoy it.

    Hopefully the hobbit won't be quite so bad in this respect.

    P.S: I know what I'm saying is very subjective and I don't think that I have met anyone else who feels this way about LOTR. It really bugged me though.

    1. Re:Direction style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, the cinematography was not as distracting as the SWELLING MUSIC, because we wouldn't want audiences to forget that this is an EPIC MOVIE.

    2. Re:Direction style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Me again) You're right. Some of those themes would be neat to hear used by a band like Tarja-era Nightwish but they were another big distraction from the story.

  26. Re:Let the by Lanteran · · Score: 1

    What? I thought Frodo was born after the hobbit took place.

    --
    "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
  27. Re:Broken business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "This deserves insightful, not offtopic."

    It does, but that's not how moderation works here. It isn't about whether you have made a good and interesting point, it's about whether you agree with the groupthink. If you don't follow the party line, you are modded down, no matter how good your point is.

  28. Re:Let the by mcgrew · · Score: 2

    To me, The Hobbit left more of an impression on me than Lord of the Rings. Maybe because I was younger when I read it, but it always came off more mystical to me.

    I was an adult when I read them, and although I don't think The Hobbit was more mystical, it was IMO a better book.

    Yes, there are tie ins to the Lord of the Rings

    No tie ins, rather LOTR was a sequel to The Hobbit.

  29. Re:Let the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    From the trailer, it's basically Bilbo telling him "hey, so let me tell you about this really cool adventure I had back in the day".

  30. Bored of the Rings by drainbramage · · Score: 2

    I'm waiting for the movie based on the book from the Harvard Lampoon.
    Dildo and Frito Bugger, Legolam, Tim Benzedrine, Goddam, Sorhed, oh what great characters, working their way through Twodor, Fordor, and the Tiny X-Shaped Forest.
    Anyone remember the chant of the Stealthy Green Toupees?

    --
    No brain, no pain.
    1. Re:Bored of the Rings by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the Nozdrul on their farting pigs, and the Riders on their sheep!


      Tim, Tim, Benzedine!
      Hash! Boo! Valvoline!
      First, second, neutral, park,
      Hie thee hence, thou leafy narc!

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    2. Re:Bored of the Rings by Gibgezr · · Score: 1

      OMG, I had forgotten all about that book. "We boggies are a hairy folk Who like to eat until we choke. Loving all like friend and brother, And hardly ever eat each other. Ever hungry, ever thirsting. Never stop till belly's bursting. Chewing chop and pork and muttons, A merry race of boring gluttons. Sing: Gobble, gobble, gobble, gobble, Gobble,gobble,gobble,gobble. Boggies gather round the table, Eat as much as you are able. Gorge yourselves from moon till noon (Don't forget your plate and spoon). Anything edible, we've got dibs on, And hope we all die with our bibs on. Ever gay, we'll never grow up, Come! And sing and play and throw-up! Sing: Gobble, gobble, gobble, gobble, Gobble,gobble,gobble,gobble...."

    3. Re:Bored of the Rings by Gibgezr · · Score: 1

      Hmm, that book even inspired fanart: http://boredoftherings.150m.com/samplemushrooms.jpg

    4. Re:Bored of the Rings by illtud · · Score: 1

      No mod up? Get off my lawn!

    5. Re:Bored of the Rings by meglon · · Score: 2

      You just want to see Legolam doing unmentionable things to the small furry woodland creatures.... admit it.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    6. Re:Bored of the Rings by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Actually, I left out a "Clean, clean, clean for Gene" in the middle of that.

      A shadow seems to pass over sconeu's face

      I would say more, but a shadow seems to have passed over my face.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    7. Re:Bored of the Rings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Walls of Minestrone!

  31. Re:Let the by mattack2 · · Score: 1

    From the trailer, it's basically Bilbo telling him "hey, so let me tell you about this really cool adventure I had back in the day".

    That's what I expected it would be, as bookend pieces.. I still think it's an unnecessary addition.

  32. Re:Let the by Nationless · · Score: 1

    Well maybe you should watch the trailer, it's only 2:32.

    It features old Bilbo telling his story to Frodo before cutting to young Bilbo for what I assume is the rest of the movie.

    It does not introduce Frodo as a companion or anything that breaks the story.

  33. Re:Let the by moogied · · Score: 2, Informative

    It did. Frodo is in the prologue of the movie when Bilbo starts to tell him the story of what happened.. then it fades into the story.

    --
    So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
  34. Afraid of hoax by mseeger · · Score: 1

    At first i was afraid it was a hoax, because 2 scenes.were clearly from LotR. But i was appeased later....

    1. Re:Afraid of hoax by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 1

      They do have Frodo in the film though. I believe it's done, as it is in the trailer, as a telling of the story; hence, Elijah Wood in the film.

    2. Re:Afraid of hoax by mseeger · · Score: 1

      I had no problems with Frodo being there...

      But two Bilbo scenes were the scenes from LotR:

      - Bilbo writing down his story (shot from behind)
      - Bilbo missing his (mislaid) ring (shot on his face)

      Those scenes were used again in a different context.

  35. I have to agree by knarfling · · Score: 1
    First, I liked the LOTR movies, and I was fine with many of the changes. But Jackson did change the entire premise of the books.

    The basic premise, IMHO, was not that little people are better than big, famous ones, or that big, famous people can do great things, but that little, ordinary people can do great things even when great people are doing great things all around them. The hobbits were not the only ones doing essential and great actions. In terms of both character development and world altering actions, many people were involved. The movie concentrated more on Aragorn's actions and his choice to be king. As such, some scenes, like the Arwen and Aragorn discussion in Rivendell were added to the movie to help us see more of Aragorn's character development.

    One of the reasons people do not like the fact that "The Scouring of the Shire" was left out was that this scene was the ultimate "we've grown up and can handle problems on our own." The barrow-wights and Tom Bombadill represented their earlier growth and learning that they can grow up even though they still needed help at that time.

    One of my minor pet peeves is that, in a couple of cases, the movies were not even consistent with its own story. When Merry and Pippin drank the Ent draughts, they grew both in character and in height. The physical growth was a representation of their character growth. They took matters into their own hands to convince the Ents to fight. The movies, while they did not emphasize the character growth, did mention their growth in stature. But at the end, when the hobbits were all together again, they were exactly the same height as before. A minor and probably a very petty point, but one that bothered me a little.

    Again, I liked the movies, and will probably see both Hobbit movies, but I can understand why some people were very disappointed while others were mildly disappointed and others were not disappointed at all.

    --
    Great civilizations have lived and died on false theories. Don't mess up mine with a few facts.
  36. Dwarves are lousy singers! by photonyx · · Score: 1

    The trailer song should've been "Misty Mountain Hop"!

    1. Re:Dwarves are lousy singers! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Which is a song about an orgy. Just so you know.

      Should have been 'Ramble On'.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  37. Re:Broken business model by sconeu · · Score: 0

    Damn straight. GP is right.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  38. You put it well. by Tran · · Score: 2

    I have a friend who also has your sentiment, but still refuses to see the LOTR movies, despite being a fan of JRRs books as well as being a fan of movies.
    His reasoning for not seeing these LOTR movies is that because they are decent he is is afraid that they will over shadow his imagination and memories of how he envisioned the story.
    He is cognizant of the divergence of the movies from the book, but as a movie buff they do not bother him. And yes, there other novels that have been published as movies that he also does not go see.
    His reason for refusing tho see the LOTR movies is one I can respect, though we still occasional try to suck him into watching it with us, teasing about our age and fading memories needing to be refreshed...

  39. It is all about the rythm by leandrod · · Score: 1

    Ðis has actually a better chance of succeß ðan the ‘Ðe Lord of ðe Rings’ sequel — a shorter original story makes it more probable ðat ðe movie will not totally lose ðe rym which is eßential to enjoying ðe Middle Earth saga.

    --
    Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
    DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
    GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
  40. Thorin is a Klingon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does he look and dress like one?

  41. The only change I liked... by Slutticus · · Score: 1

    The only change to the books that I liked was making Aragorn a humble and reluctant king (movie) as opposed to a pompous, arrogant douche (books). That was much needed IMO. The other stuff (like Elves in places they shouldn't be...) was a bit harder to take.

  42. Thorin is a Klingon by sethmichaud · · Score: 1

    Why does he look and dress like one?

    1. Re:Thorin is a Klingon by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I was wondering why he was human height...even Thorin should be three to four feet tall, not five+

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  43. Maybe you should read about Tolkien,the man? by geekoid · · Score: 1

    "The most critical reader of all, myself, now finds many defects, minor and major , but being fortunately under no obligation either to review the book or to write it again, he will pass over these in silence, except one that has been noted by others: the book is too short."

    So stop putting the man on some sort of pedestal where he corrected every thing and put out a perfect book.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Maybe you should read about Tolkien,the man? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is one of the most obtuse comments I've ever read. If TOLKIEN did the changes, it'd still be TOLKIEN's own work. Do you get it now?

    2. Re:Maybe you should read about Tolkien,the man? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. I don't. Neither do you: you're back to putting him on a pedestal.

      I didn't go to a theatre to watch "something Tolkien wrote", I came to watch "the Lord of the Rings".

    3. Re:Maybe you should read about Tolkien,the man? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >"The most critical reader of all, myself, now finds many defects, minor and major , but being fortunately under no obligation either to review the book or to write it again, he will pass over these in silence, except one that has been noted by others: the book is too short."

      Well, that's one quote we won't find on George Lucas' tombstone. :-)

  44. Songs... by roc97007 · · Score: 2

    > I'm glad to hear that they've kept the Misty Mountains song and I'll be greatly disappointed if an updated version of "Funny Little Things" or "Down, Down to Goblin Town" doesn't make the cut also.

    Not me. The Misty Mountains song was given a great treatment -- it sounds wistful and eerie. I'm told the Break Plates song will be in there also. But seriously, do we really need The Hobbit to be a musical? There already is one and it was horrible.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:Songs... by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 1

      The rendition of "Over the Misty Mountain Cold" in the trailer was very nice though. As ambivalent as I am about the movie (how can it have two parts?) that song excites me. I know you could never do this in cinema and have people actually buy tickets, but I would love it if they did the whole song in the DVD.

    2. Re:Songs... by sackbut · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of the Brunnen-G fight song on Lexx...

    3. Re:Songs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THe lyrics are not the same I think it is another song altogether.

  45. Re:Let the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If he gets a semi-hot actress, she will have all kinds of parts that didn't happen

    Didn't happen? You mean the parts with hobbits, dwarfs, trolls and dragons actually DID happen?

    Woah. I should watch more of these documentaries I guess.

  46. If they don't include this song... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... it wont' work.

    The Greatest Adventure!

  47. Re:Let the by Whiteox · · Score: 2

    So let me get this straight... In the whole of the Shire, absolutely NO ONE knew about this except for Bilbo? No folklore? Old newspaper articles? Campfire stories? No old surviving hobbits in the local pub mouthing off?

    --
    Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
  48. Perfect example... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no law which would have ever preventer Peter from making this film... ..except copyright. The current copyright laws literally kill this project - they stifled innovation.
    Had this been in the PD (which I believe it should have been due to its age), we would have
    had this film made 5 years ago (or sooner). We're lucky that Peter hasn't passed; he tends
    to do excellent work - captures every detail, IMHO.

    The current copyright absolutely stifles innovation in every area - except for the bank account
    of the few rights holders in the world. Very sad...

  49. Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you think of ANYTHING that rhymes with Bilbo?

    1. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ILBO

      (one for all the old mainframers out there)

    2. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only the last syllable has to rhyme, and can be any consonant sound followed by the long o sound. The rhyming word does not have to be two syllables; you just have to match the number of syllables in the line to fit the poem's meter, which can be however many or few words as you want it to be.

      dough, crow, low, throw, mow, ... I could go on so...

  50. Hopefully.... by meglon · · Score: 1

    ... they won't make some of the glaringly horrid mistakes they made in the LoTR movies. Seriously, they start running though Moria (sorry... Khazad-Dum.... feking dorfs and their names), trying to get away from every goblin in the entire world it looked like.. and not a one of them had the decency to yell "TRAIN TO ZONE!" Damn N00bs and their screw ups.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  51. Re:Let the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one said that, but Bilbo was writing a book on it and all...

  52. 48 frames per second? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just a technical question, but since this movie is being shot and shown at 48 FPS, when do we get to see trailers at that frame rate? Can YouTube or Quicktime show it?

    1. Re:48 frames per second? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's part of the answer, but much more may be your video card and monitor refresh rates.
      I think, based on what I've read, the higher frame rates provide for smoother panning and crisper
      action scenes. This might be theatre only, definitely NOT DVD and probably not BD.

      So I think the players get the frame-rate from the file's header (YT and QT), but your video card/
      driver software may just drop every other frame. Or even it that doesn't happen, the refresh rate
      of you monitor may not be fast enough or properly sync to that FPS...

      IMHO.

  53. 2 movies? by mustPushCart · · Score: 1

    I remember the hobbit is not as long or as adventureous as the trilogy. Does it really need 2 movies?

    1. Re:2 movies? by cyclomedia · · Score: 1

      yes, quite a lot happens, and my guess (and has been for a loonnng time) is that the split will occur right after they escape from the wood elves and see the lonely mountain for the first time.

      It's a thinner book than you'd expect because there's less time spent describing every rock, twig and leaf in every scene and its family history

      --
      If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
    2. Re:2 movies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention they seem to be planning to incorporate the White Counsel, flashbacks to Gandalf's trip to Dol Guldur, etc. There's a lot of material that was only outlined by JRRT.

    3. Re:2 movies? by FranktehReaver · · Score: 1

      Also it makes them more money with two box office openings, DVD releases, DVD extended edition releases, Blu-Ray release, and finally the Blu-Ray extended editions. All separated by a year or so of course.

  54. Re:Let the by mcswell · · Score: 1

    What, haven't you heard of Galaxy Quest?

  55. Re:Let the by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 1

    The Hobbit is a children's book, which is why it is so tidy. LOTRs are not children's books (although many of us enjoyed them as children).

  56. Umm by Tran · · Score: 1

    Did you post to the wrong comment? I didn't say anything negative about the rotoscoping. I liked the effect of the rotoscoping, but the Bakshi still managed to butcher the (telling of the) story from what I recall.

    1. Re:Umm by Gibgezr · · Score: 1

      Yes, I did manage to post to the wrong comment. My bad.

  57. Re:Let the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So let me get this straight... In the whole of the Shire, absolutely NO ONE knew about this except for Bilbo? No folklore? Old newspaper articles? Campfire stories? No old surviving hobbits in the local pub mouthing off?

    Hobbits do not like "adventure." They consider it kind of disreputable and embarrassing. People of the Shire wouldn't sit around a pub talking about Bilbo's Riddle Game with Gollum any more than they'd talk about how Cousin Nobby was caught doing it with a donkey.

  58. Re:Let the by smi.james.th · · Score: 1

    I think it would work out quite well to do it that way, especially since the LOTR movies were done first. A good number of people have seen the films but never read the books, so this would do well to put it in context for them.

    --
    One thing I know, and that is that I am ignorant...
  59. Re:Let the by bmcage · · Score: 1

    Yes. It fits with the culture of the hobbits which are a people not interested in the wider world. LOTR is also about the fact that even such cultures are not safe from outside evil.

  60. Re:Let the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just watch the trailer?

    When I heard about that I was like WTF? But it turns out the story starts in third person where he listens to Bilbo tell the whole story in his works that he kept a secret and then it goes back in time 60 years to The Hobbit and the story takes place.

  61. Re:Let the by _Shad0w_ · · Score: 1

    They were, in fact, written as children's books, afaicr.

    --

    Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.

  62. Re:Let the by stewbacca · · Score: 1

    If he gets a semi-hot actress, she will have all kinds of parts that didn't happen.

    So, based on Jackson's previous work, there's going to be parts that didn't happen.

    just don't add a bunch a shit that never happened.

    We've established this is a Jackson movie, so that's not gonna happen.

  63. Re:Let the by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

    Bilbo did tell stories but he was ignored and regarded as a dangerous influence on young Hobits

  64. Best wishes on this holiday season. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.aliexpress.com/fm-store/708019/other-products.html

    Welcome to Christmas, I'll gift! !

    Christmas arrived, and to support my friends and my friends love to say thank you walked into my life, I will do my best to give you unlimited fun!

    Christmas season, shop specially prepared small gifts, as long as the consumer in the shop, you can receive a small gift in Figure random sent, welcome all to buy.

    Even if there is no snow Christmas can also be romantic, with the blessing even feel warm winter, Christmas Eve I wish: May the happiness and your life accompanied! Wish you a gift mountains!

    http://www.aliexpress.com/fm-store/408333

    Alibaba International Station ID: CN1002276145

    Mobile: 13676944403 0371-55901796

    About US

    Q: Why are your prices so low, are these quality items and brand new?

    A: YES, you pay the FACTORY PRICE!

    We sell brand new items directly from factory in Asia. That is why our prices are so competitive.

    To maintain quality control we do personally inspect for each item prior to shipment. All items are 100% new and inspected.

    1.We guarantee 100% customer satisfaction. If your item is not as described or faulty when you receive it we will replace it for you with no additional charge.

    2. Many sellers supply grey market, We guarantee that our products are brand new, official and first-class quality.

    We want to thank you for your interest in our products. We are a new seller in this market, and it is true that you may have suspicions of our creditability, as with any new seller. However, we have the capacity to accept 10 orders per day at the moment and we can show you evidence of previous orders. If you need more proof, our suggestion is that you buy a sample product first, because the best way to verify the quality is when you get the product and are able to test it first-hand.

    We hope to develop a strong, long-term, mutually beneficial relationship with you. To simplify things, you can buy the product from us and sell it directly to your customers - we are happy to ship the product to them directly.

    If you think we can meet your requirements, please send us your order soon.