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).
Please be wrong.
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.
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
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.
...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.
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.
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.
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!
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".
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.
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.
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?
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!