Anyone else seen the new trailer for "The Hobbit"?

[Michał Kalina]

There were many who were, Michal, and others who didn't like it that Tom Bombadil was not included in the movies.  There were echoes or suggestions or references to both.  But movies and their story telling is a different media than books.  Some things that work well in one, don't in the other. 

To be frankly, I didn't like the book until they've reached Brie. However that Shire chapter in the end was my favourite one.

[biro]

Come to think of it, it's time for me to read the books again. 

[Ebor]

Not from the movie per se, but entertaining in itself:

Here is an analysis of the contract between Bilbo Baggins and Thorin Oakenshield and Co. and whether it is enforceable:

http://www.maucerelawgroup.com/bilbo-baggins-v-thorin-oakenshield-et-al-is-the-hobbit%E2%80%99s-contract-enforceable/

[Maximum Bob]

Woohoo, just got my tickets for Saturday. Happy birthday on Saturday to me.

[Asteriktos]

Woohoo, just got my tickets for Saturday. Happy birthday on Saturday to me.

What did you think of it? I'm going to see it today...

[Ansgar]

It is AMAZING!

[Maximum Bob]

It is AMAZING!

I agree. Some  new material not in the book, but l didn't mind that kept me from knowing everything in advance. Some back story elements that caused other things to make more sense. Some wonderful humour and spectacular views.

[Sleeper]

I'm a huge fan of the trilogy and, in my opinion, The Hobbit is as good as any of them. I was engrossed the entire time. It did exactly what prequels should do, which is have a beautiful story of its own, but set the stage for the "bigger" story. The non-book elements were all taken from appendices to the LOTR and were interwoven masterfully. It really is fantastic, definitely see it.

However, I'd highly recommend you see it in normal 2D. I saw it in 3D and didn't think it enhanced it in any way.

[Michał Kalina]

Spoilers! Give me some spoilers!

[Cyrillic]

Spoilers! Give me some spoilers!

Bard kills Smaug.

Oh wait, that's for the next part.

[biro]

Spoilers! Give me some spoilers!

In a hole in the ground, there lived a hobbit.

[Cyrillic]

Spoilers! Give me some spoilers!

In a hole in the ground, there lived a hobbit.

Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort.

[Michał Kalina]

Hahaha

[Asteriktos]

*SPOILERS*

I saw the 2D version. I saw both parts 1 and 2 today. I know it was both parts because no one movie can drone on and on and on like that. Had to be at least 2 of them. What a terrible movie. Seriously, that might have been the worst movie I've seen in years. What a disjointed, boring, BORING, mess. Oh, and a cutesy-let's-try-to-entertain-kids-while-we-also-have-beheadings movie. Though that one beheading where Gandalf knocks it off the orc's head was pretty funny. The other awesome part--the ONLY other cool part--was the battle between the stone giants. That was cool. But that's it. I also didn't like some of the nods to the LOTR movie. Ok, Gandalf hits his head on the chandelier, that was nice. But some of it just seemed like they didn't have enough ideas so they were recycling. I'm pretty sure they recycled a Pirates of the Caribbean idea or two as well. Maybe I'll watch it again and will love it. Maybe I'm overreacting. Maybe I was just frustrated and tired. Or maybe not.

[Asteriktos]

*SPOILERS*

Also, I couldn't have been the only one who found the makeup on the dwarves to be terrible? And those hair styles in an attempt to help make them different from each other? Oh boy. Admittedly the acting seemed fine to me. Not interesting. But fine for what it was. I didn't buy Thorin as a tough guy though... the actor was just too small. Some of his battle moments were pretty good though in spite of that. Smaug attacking the city/stronghold was also good. There was again a walking montage, which will of course delight orthonorm and others here who like that sort of thing.

[Asteriktos]

Well? Well? 

[livefreeordie]

I saw it with my three oldest kids Sunday and we loved it.  They all liked it better than Lord of the Rings, and they loved Lord of the Rings.  Gollum was awesome, I liked how the beginning of the movie introduced a young Bilbo and gave you time to know him before he went on the adventure.  The last 45 minutes was a constant chase of excitement.

[Nephi]

I honestly wish it weren't being made into a money-milking trilogy, but the first movie turned out to be pretty good despite its (imo) flaws.

Pros:
Showed the fall of the Dwarven kingdom really well at the beginning.
Great introduction - especially for fans of the book with a few scenes of verbatim dialogue.
Tied the Hobbit storyline into the wider LOTR story well.
Stayed pretty close to the book apart from additions and slight modifications.
Gollum/riddle scene was surprisingly well done.
Was overall an enjoyable movie and a hopeful start for the trilogy.

Cons:
Changed the "Down, Down to Goblin Town" song, with a modified version of it being badly sung by the Goblin King.
Removed the Fifteen Birds/"Funny Little Things" song altogether. I was really looking forward to hearing this one too. (Is this even from the book, or just the 1977 film?)
Lost the Hobbit's feel for a more LOTR feel.
Action scenes were too over-the-top, and much too like something from Pirates of the Caribbean.
Eagles didn't talk.
Some of the dwarves looked too much like humans.

[William]

Asteriktos, I will destroy you. 

It be my favorite movie of the year.

[Dan the Man]

*SPOILERS (maybe?)*

I wasn't a fan of the way Dale was portrayed, even for the few seconds we actually saw them (iirc they're meant to be based on the Goths and Vikings, so it was weird to see Middle Eastern soldiers and Mediterranean architecture), Rhadagast was just silly, and Thranduil riding on an elk was too much. Azog shouldn't have even been there either, and it's pretty evident that they're fulfilling WB's mandate for a trilogy by packing in unnecessary battle scenes. Don't get me wrong, it was definitely fun to watch (I thought Gollum's scene was very well done, for example), but it just didn't have the same feel as Jackson's first LotR trilogy, which was absolutely fantastic and, though not perfect, still far more true to Tolkien's original work. Hopefully the second and third movies in the series will be better.

On a scale of 1-10, I'd call it a 7.

[PeterTheAleut]

Being a Doctor Who nerd, I was pleasantly surprised to see Doctor No. 7, Sylvester McCoy, cast in the role of Radagast the Brown.

[JamesR]

Not yet, but I am absolutely dying to see the film. If I get time this weekend, I might call up my friend Angie--who's a big fantasy nerd--and see it with her.

[Michał Kalina]

I've watched it.

I can't say much about pictures (I will form an opinion after I'll watch it in a cinema) but the story is OK.

[Cyrillic]

I went to see it in the cinema yesterday. I really liked it and I'm certainly going to see part 2 in the cinema when it's released.

[Ebor]

I was able to see it yesterday.  It'll need a second viewing at least, of course.  I liked it very much.
Right off the bat I must warn you that I am such a geek that when the names of the blue wizards are not recalled I could say "Alatar and Pallando". 

I liked the back story and *it's all there in the appendices and supplemental writings*.  The music is great as before and the use of the various themes (leitmotifs anyone?) are well done.  I also like it that the songs are sung by the actors themselves.  Martin Freeman fits Bilbo beautifully (and fyi I also like him in the very different role of Dr. Watson in Sherlock.)

It is interesting that Hugo Weaving was very good at portraying Elrond as glad and not careworn as he was in LotR.  Radagast was not an extraneous figure and he *is* the one in the histories that finds out that the Necromancer has occupied Dol Guldur and got the news to the White Council.

The "Riddles in the Dark" was spot on wonderful and I thought that it was a great bit of show-don't-tell that we see the Ring leaving Gollum.

Costar New Zealand was gorgeous as it was nine years ago when I last "visited" in a movie theater.

Asteriktos- the bit about "parts 1 and 2" was an amusing clue. 

I am not sure how much else to discuss yet as to avoid any spoilers.

[Michał Kalina]

Where are Blue Wizards named?

[PeterTheAleut]

Where are Blue Wizards named?

I'd never read Tolkien's Unfinished Tales, either, but I was able to find some information on the Blue Wizards:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Wizards

[Ebor]

Where are Blue Wizards named?

There is a 12 volume series of material and analysis that Christopher Tolkien compiled from his father's papers that were published in the 80s and 90s.  It's in one of them.  It's a bit of a tribute/jest to have the line about their names not being recalled since they were only found in the papers and never are referred to in the text of LotR.

There are some rather nice stories amongst the various notes and bits that show how the works developed and changed over time.

Ebor

[Michał Kalina]

Thank you both.

[Ebor]

At your service

 

[William]

It's in one of them.  It's a bit of a tribute/jest to have the line about their names not being recalled since they were only found in the papers and never are referred to in the text of LotR.

It could also be the copyright situation since Warner Bros. does not own the intellectual material wherein they are named.

[Ebor]

I doubt it.  It fits with the history/sense of time that would be in such a situation. Recall that the istari/wizards came to Middle Earth from the West (Valinor) around Third Age 1000 and events of The Hobbit begin in 2941 T.A.  So nearly 2,000 years without seeing someone could lead to forgetting their name.

[Michał Kalina]

Didn't know where to put that:

(tone 4)

O most glorious hobbit Bilbo
you won a share of the treasure guarded by the dragon, Smaug!
For thou didst journey from the your home into a sinister territory.
In the Black Forest without Gandalf you faced giant spiders and wood-elves
and found the secret door!
And you then solved the secret riddles of Gollum!
And with the eagles and Beorn you secured the final victory!

http://symon-salavejka.livejournal.com/282742.html

[Ebor]

That's a wonderful bit /\
Thank you for posting it, Michal.

[jnorm888]

should i see the 2d or the 3d version?

[Michał Kalina]

I personally prefer 2d and most likely will watch it that way.

[Ebor]

I saw it in 2D and it was fine that way.

[Maximum Bob]

I saw it in 2D but I would like to see it in 3D.  Probably be a bit  before that happens though.

[NightOwl]

I'm with Asteriktos on this one. Really bad and unnecessarily long movie, completely overshadowed by other great films recently released including Argo, Lincoln, and Django Unchained (that one was a guilty pleasure... extremely violent but a fun ride, and some great acting by Samuel Jackson and Leonardo DiCaprio).

[William]

Django Unchained was awesome.

[PeterTheAleut]

should i see the 2d or the 3d version?

There's nothing in the 3D version that makes the viewing experience any better than 2D. Some movies are made for 3D; The Hobbit is not one of them. You're better off, then, not wasting the extra money a 3D viewing will cost you.

[Jetavan]

Django Unchained was awesome.

I heard it was off the hook.

[PeterTheAleut]

Django Unchained was awesome.

I heard it was off the hook.

BOOOO! HISS! Where are my rotten tomatoes when I need them?

[FormerReformer]

The sets had too much of a PBS by way of BBC special feel- the entire movie looked like a stage production, rather killing the all-vital for a Tolkien work "willing suspension of disbelief". The 2:48 minute running time contributed to an overbloated mess- I could possibly see a trilogy clocking in at 2 hrs each while still being enjoyable (though I still boggle at a trilogy for a kid's story that was shorter than any one of the LotR books- though the addition of lore from LotR appendices and the Silmarillion is a nice touch), but there were many instances of scenery porn that could have been cut with no problem, especially given the fact that it all looked fake!

The performances were great, the songs were great, and all in all I will probably buy it in a home format- and perhaps make an edited version for private viewing with a much saner less ego-driven running time.

[Jetavan]

Rivendell looked extremely CGI-ied.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > General Forums > Reviews > Topic: Anyone else seen the new trailer for "The Hobbit"?