Hobbit Film Trailer Posted Online

QuickTime! by antdude · 2011-12-21 07:49 · 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).

RTFA or WTFT by Missing.Matter · 2011-12-21 07:52 · 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

bad info by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-21 07:52 · 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.

Re:bad info by Bacon+Bits · 2011-12-21 08:22 · 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.
Re:bad info by An+Ominous+Coward · 2011-12-21 08:44 · 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.
Re:bad info by Raenex · 2011-12-21 08:52 · 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!
Re:bad info by vux984 · 2011-12-21 09:28 · 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.
Re:bad info by bigstrat2003 · 2011-12-21 09:28 · 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
Re:bad info by Lanteran · 2011-12-21 09:30 · 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.
Re:bad info by geekoid · 2011-12-21 09:47 · 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
Re:bad info by Gibgezr · 2011-12-21 10:29 · 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.
Re:bad info by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-21 11:40 · 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.
Re:bad info by banemc · 2011-12-21 12:56 · 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/

DOH! by antdude · 2011-12-21 07:52 · 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).

Re:DOH! by _0xd0ad · 2011-12-21 08:03 · 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.

Bah, humbug. by Slartibartfast · 2011-12-21 07:56 · 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*

Re:Bah, humbug. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-21 08:01 · 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.
Re:Bah, humbug. by SteveFoerster · 2011-12-21 08:04 · 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
Re:Bah, humbug. by grimmjeeper · 2011-12-21 08:07 · 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.
Re:Bah, humbug. by crow · 2011-12-21 08:10 · 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.
Re:Bah, humbug. by ILongForDarkness · 2011-12-21 08:14 · 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.
Re:Bah, humbug. by KhabaLox · 2011-12-21 08:24 · 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.
Re:Bah, humbug. by alexo · 2011-12-21 08:33 · 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.
Re:Bah, humbug. by mcgrew · 2011-12-21 08:42 · 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.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:Bah, humbug. by CommieLib · 2011-12-21 08:47 · 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.
Re:Bah, humbug. by Curunir_wolf · 2011-12-21 08:56 · 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
Re:Bah, humbug. by BlortHorc · 2011-12-21 09:13 · 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).
Re:Bah, humbug. by grimmjeeper · 2011-12-21 09:21 · 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.
Re:Bah, humbug. by kqs · 2011-12-21 09:25 · 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.
Re:Bah, humbug. by Mitreya · 2011-12-21 10:00 · 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?
Re:Bah, humbug. by hawks5999 · 2011-12-21 10:02 · Score: 2

I like the eyewitness accounts in The Last Ringbearer
Re:Bah, humbug. by Phrogman · 2011-12-21 11:30 · 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
Re:Bah, humbug. by BorelHendrake · 2011-12-22 04:56 · 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.

Oh Mayans. by hawks5999 · 2011-12-21 08:00 · Score: 5, Funny

Please be wrong.

This movie is a complete ripoff of LOTR by thatbloke83 · 2011-12-21 08:12 · 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)

Re:Let the by sheehaje · 2011-12-21 08:13 · 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.

Re:Songs by KhabaLox · 2011-12-21 08:18 · 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.

Honestly, dude, if I could, I would. by Slartibartfast · 2011-12-21 08:18 · 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?

Re:Honestly, dude, if I could, I would. by grimmjeeper · 2011-12-21 09:46 · 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.
Re:Honestly, dude, if I could, I would. by jjohnson · 2011-12-21 10:58 · 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.
Re:Honestly, dude, if I could, I would. by jjohnson · 2011-12-21 14:28 · 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.

Excited, but... by Oyjord · 2011-12-21 08:44 · 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.

Re:Let the by mcgrew · 2011-12-21 09:04 · 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.

--
Free Martian Whores!

Re:Let the by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-21 09:07 · 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".

Bored of the Rings by drainbramage · 2011-12-21 09:10 · 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.

Re:Bored of the Rings by meglon · 2011-12-21 13:39 · 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

Re:Let the by moogied · 2011-12-21 09:17 · 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."

Re:Wow.... by Pope · 2011-12-21 09:26 · 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.

Re:Not unexpected... by demonbug · 2011-12-21 09:33 · 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.

Re:Ripoff by tmarsh86 · 2011-12-21 09:37 · Score: 2

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

Re:Not unexpected... by knarfling · 2011-12-21 09:37 · 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.

You put it well. by Tran · 2011-12-21 09:46 · 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...

Songs... by roc97007 · 2011-12-21 10:33 · 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.

Re:Wow.... by Mogster · 2011-12-21 10:40 · 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

Re:Songs by markdavis · 2011-12-21 10:42 · 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!

Re:Let the by Whiteox · 2011-12-21 11:36 · 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!

Slashdot Mirror

Hobbit Film Trailer Posted Online

56 of 257 comments (clear)