Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hobbit Film Trailer Posted Online

Posted by samzenpus on from the chip-the-glasses-crack-the-plates dept.

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.

11 of 257 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.
    2. 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!

    3. 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
    4. 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.

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

    Please be wrong.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.
  7. 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.