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.
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).
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
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.
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).
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*
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?
Please be wrong.
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!
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.
...I mean seriously! The actors even look the same and they are using some of the same stuff!
(http://i.imgur.com/e9WwU.jpg)
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.
The film, due December 14, 2012, is subtitled "An Unexpected Journey"
Odd, so was the book.
Free Martian Whores!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
21st Century Renaissance Man
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...)
They gave away the ending
"The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance." -Thomas Jefferson
(I haven't watched the trailer.)
Well, Frodo is somehow in the movie.. so apparently they did add a bunch of ... stuff...
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.
Hollywood has been stuck in the rut of rehashing (usually poorly) old ideas and movies for 20 years.
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.
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.
Free Martian Whores!
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".
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.
That's what I expected it would be, as bookend pieces.. I still think it's an unnecessary addition.
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.
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."
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!
At first i was afraid it was a hoax, because 2 scenes.were clearly from LotR. But i was appeased later....
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.
The trailer song should've been "Misty Mountain Hop"!
Not a very creative troll. This is copy/pasted verbatim from a You Tube comment for the trailer.
Which I left.
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...
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
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.
Why does he look and dress like one?
"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
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
> 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.
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!
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!
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!
... 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
I remember the hobbit is not as long or as adventureous as the trilogy. Does it really need 2 movies?
What, haven't you heard of Galaxy Quest?
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).
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.
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.
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...
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.
They were, in fact, written as children's books, afaicr.
Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
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.
LOTR was criticized for cutting out the songs. Maybe this is Jackson's attempt to battle his insecurity against criticism.
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.
that's it, hollywood just goes "whoooosh" anymore rather than having ideas
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
Bilbo did tell stories but he was ignored and regarded as a dangerous influence on young Hobits
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?
man, some people just can't take a joke