1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. We have updated the board style and hope you like it. If you don't, you can switch back by going to https://www.fsuniverse.net/forum/index.php?misc/style Select V Bulletin 3.0 style.

"The Hobbit" trailer debuts, "Lord of the Rings" prequel

Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by all_empty, Dec 21, 2011.

  1. Yehudi

    Yehudi Snarks about Volchkova with love

    Although Richard Armitage looks great, I always pictured Thorin to be older. I think of the Dwarves present, he's supposed to be the oldest. But nitpicking aside, I can't wait.
  2. walei

    walei Well-Known Member

  3. AragornElessar

    AragornElessar Well-Known Member

    Finally saw the Trailer over at YouTube and...

    OMG!!! IS IT DECEMBER 2012 YET!?!

    Looks amazing and I had the chills running down my spine tingle producing could burst out of my skin excitement experience again that I haven't had since my first look of ROTK back in the Spring/Summer of 2003. :D

    Can. Not. WAIT!!!
  4. Satellitegirl

    Satellitegirl New Member

    Can't wait :) It's like having a reunion with friends, seeing the trailer. So many great actors that are a part of this. Chills!!!
  5. danceronice

    danceronice Corgi Wrangler

    It took him more than thirty years to write LOTR, which was less a book than an excuse to create multiple languages and an entire "mythology" for England. The fact that he got a couple novels out of it was in his mind somewhat beside the point. (He wanted it all to be one book, in fact, but publishers wisely talked him into three.)
  6. Vagabond

    Vagabond Well-Known Member

  7. Vagabond

    Vagabond Well-Known Member

    It now transpires that the movie version of The Hedgehog The Hobbit will be in three installments, not two.

    Scathing Commentary in The Guardian.

    I gotta say, three four-hour installments took The Lord of the Rings from :watch: to :yawn:. I seriously considered walking out of The Return of the King. And, in retrospect, I should have.

    Spread out over a year or not, I don't think I want to spend that much more time with Peter Jackson's version of Middle Earth. :scream:
  8. Bostonfan

    Bostonfan Well-Known Member

    One of the funniest, rolling-on-the-floor, gut-busting, gasping for air laugther that I ever had was at Return of the King. I has seen it once and then went back a week later to see it at the theater with my brother and sister-in-law. Anyway, there was a VERY elderly man sitting in front of me (I'd guess at least 85 y/o). As the endless scenes stretched out with with Frodo at Mount Doom poised to throw in the ring, this old man shouted, "JUST THROW THE FU*KING RING IN ALREADY!"

    It was such a sincere and involuntary outburst and I had to leave the theater because I burst out laughing and couldn't stop. :rofl: I was in hysterics for several minutes in the hallway with a bewildered theater staff looking on. Simply unforgettable - and summed up my feelings when I first saw the picture.
  9. A.H.Black

    A.H.Black Well-Known Member

    I agree.

    As a Tolkien lover, the LOTR movies have not worn well for me. Peter Jackson changed the motivation for every single character that Tolkien created. I can't imagine he won't do the same in the Hobbit. Three movies? Not.

    This time I don't intend to let myself be overwhelmed by the special effects and the art direction. Those parts of the creation of middle earth are wonderful and I give full marks to Jackson. Now, Mr. Jackson, please leave the story and the characters alone.
  10. Japanfan

    Japanfan Well-Known Member

    I didn't know there were two films being made from The Hobbit.

    I am not looking forward to this as much as LOTR because it is a simpler story meant for a younger audience - but I'll excited nonetheless and will be planning to go see it well before it is released. Love Ian McKellen and anticipate another marvelous visual feast from Peter Jackson.

    Thank I'll probably watch LOTR again, for the third time.
  11. A.H.Black

    A.H.Black Well-Known Member

    Actually Jackson recently announced that it will be 3 films.
  12. Buzz

    Buzz Well-Known Member

    The trailer have been around a while.
  13. vesperholly

    vesperholly Well-Known Member

    Could you elaborate? I've heard that Aragorn and Eowyn's relationship is quite different, as well as Faramir, but I'm not sure in what way.

    I started reading the first book, but I couldn't get past the endless pages of Tom Bombadil. :scream:
  14. Theatregirl1122

    Theatregirl1122 Enjoying Vicarious Voids!

    The problem with Faramir is that they failed to make him actually different from Boromir. Faramir resists the temptation of the Ring, gives Frodo supplies, and lets him go against his father's orders. He does not drag Frodo all the way back to Osgiliath.
  15. ioana

    ioana Well-Known Member

    Eowyn helps nurse Faramir back to health in the books (after his father tries to get him on a funeral pyre), which they had to leave out of the thetrical version of the movie. They are shown together at the very end of LOTR, but their relationship was one of the better written love stories, IMO.

  16. vesperholly

    vesperholly Well-Known Member

    That scene is why I prefer the Extended Edition of LOTR :swoon:
  17. Tesla

    Tesla Whippet Good

    I love the Extended Editions. :swoon:
  18. A.H.Black

    A.H.Black Well-Known Member

    There's only about 10 pages of Tom Bombadil. Get past them and keep reading.

    OK, here goes. I'll start on one and hope we don't get an explosion going.

    Frodo and Sam - This relationship is very distorted in the movie in my opinion. There is NEVER any question of Frodo and Sam's loyalty to each other in the book. Frodo does feel some sympathy for Gollum, but he is under no illusions about who and what Gollum is. He always depends on Sam and Sam is always totally loyal to Frodo. They are never parted except when Sam thinks Frodo is dead. Frodo does accept Gollum as a guide and Sam isn't happy about some of the decisions Frodo makes but Gollum's influence never drives a wedge between the two.

    I could do 2 pages on Frodo, but I won't. I still watch the movies because of the visual impact but I cringe more and more as time goes on. I so wish Jackson had loved the way Tolkien wrote the book enough to show us Tolkien's characters.
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2012
  19. misskarne

    misskarne #AustraliaForTheTeamEvent

    I think you just summed up one of my least favourite parts of the movie.

    And don't get me started on ditzy!Legolas (and the fact that he is blond...) and asshole!Elrond, plus the complete removal of Elladan, Elrohir and the Rangers (where did the Elves at Helm's Deep come from? Not the book...)

    I also feel miffed that Faramir and Eowyn didn't make it to the movie. I really need to get the extended cuts.

    And Aragorn's little speech outside the Black Gate always makes me :rolleyes: and :rofl: because for one, it sounds an awful lot like the speech at the climax of "Independence Day" and two, the Rohirrim aren't technically "Men of the West". But whatever.

    Also, I kinda felt that having Frodo shove Gollum off the end of the cliff thingy missed the point a little.

    I feel like Jackson is trying to correct some of the stuff he had to leave out of LOTR by stuffing it into The Hobbit. I don't know if it'll work. Really not a fan of the creepy Gandalf/Galadriel vibe I get from the trailer and if they make Elrond an ass again I think I will throw something. Elrond is my favourite character.

    And is it just me or do the dwarves look kind of... non-dwarvish?
  20. vesperholly

    vesperholly Well-Known Member

    I was reading on my Kindle and it just seemed to go on and on ... there was so much more crap that went on before they got to Bree. And the singing :slinkaway
  21. Anita18

    Anita18 Well-Known Member

    I've never read the book :shuffle: but the Frodo parts in the movies ALWAYS bothered me. He was such an a-hole to Sam, and it wasn't enjoyable to watch. To the point where I skip them entirely. :p
  22. jobelle

    jobelle Member

    Yes, and his difference from Boromir is one of the reasons that his father, Denethor, scorns him so much. Once he knows Frodo's mission, Faramir not only allows Frodo to leave Henneth Annun (the hide-out waterfall place they go to) but he also continues to defend his choice to his father later on when Denethor is angry with him for that decision. Faramir is one of the most remarkable characters in the book and it really is a shame that Peter Jackson could not see that.

    I also get really really annoyed with how they changed Aragorn. When the events in the movie take place he had known (and accepted) that he was the heir of Elendil for sixty years. Under the tutelage of Elrond and Gandalf he had been preparing for the possibility of reclaiming the throne. He had carried the broken sword with him and it was reforged for him BEFORE they even left Rivendell in the first book. He declared his title openly before the doors of Meduseld in Edoras etc., etc., etc., etc. There was none of this "He turned from that way long ago" type comments from Elrond or the "I don't think I can do this" type comments from Aragorn. It's just ridiculous.
  23. Bostonfan

    Bostonfan Well-Known Member

    IIRC from the DVD extras, this was a function of needing to give Frodo and Sam an "obstacle" in the 2nd movie. Apparently they decided the spider part was going to wait until the 3rd movie, so there was no compelling obstacle to drive Frodo and Sam's journey in the 2nd movie. Jackson felt that they spent all this time demonstrating the seductive power of the ring, and it would be strange to present Faramir was one who can so readily discard it. So they changed things to show Faramir as detaining Frodo and Sam, and then letting them go later.

    I've never read the books, so I don't know why was left in, cut out or changed. I'm just telling you what Jackson said about the change to Faramir.
  24. Zemgirl

    Zemgirl Well-Known Member

    I didn't think the second film needed that obstacle, as Frodo and Sam had plenty of challenges to keep them busy and the audience engaged. And Faramir most certainly did not need a personality transplant. The whole point was that he chose to resist the ring and do the right thing - and we know that choice is possible, because others made it, too: everyone present at the Council of Elrond, for instance. Of course Faramir is in a very difficult situation and his decision entails great risks, both for himself and for his people, yet he does not give in to temptation to make the easier, obvious choice. By taking that (and his relationship with Eowyn) away from him, he's really just another extra for the battle scenes (which were way too long).

    I think Jackson's vision for the trilogy worked at the broader level, as a spectacle. There's a lot of wow factor in there. But if you look at the characters and their relationships, there are multiple places where he could have remained truer to the books without sacrificing the cinematic storytelling.
  25. Bostonfan

    Bostonfan Well-Known Member

    I also remember from the DVD that the actor playing Faramir (his name escapes me at the moment) read the books and was surprised by the changes to the character when he got the script. When he questioned it, he was told what I mentioned above from Jackson. I bet the actor would have liked it to stay truer to the book too.
  26. cygnus

    cygnus Well-Known Member

    I am a book fan, but I love the movies too. I don't have a problem with the way Faramir was portrayed. He was tempted by the ring for a while, but then did the right thing. I think that that shows even more strength than never having been tempted at all. The extra scenes in the extended DVD show more of his relationship with Boromir, and with Eowyn. I take those versions as the "official" version anyway.

    Re Frodo and Sam. I think that the problems between them show how the ring was taking hold of Frodo and changing him- when he sends Sam away, it was the ring talking, not him. So it emphasizes the power of the ring and how it was building as they got closer to Mordor.
  27. Zemgirl

    Zemgirl Well-Known Member

    ^ I agree that Jackson needed to find a way to show the power of the ring on-screen; I just don't like how he did it.

    Actually, I've read that David Wenham thought the book version was lacking in terms of drama and interest. I don't know if that's true.
  28. A.H.Black

    A.H.Black Well-Known Member

    I also like the movies, but the changes grate more and more. I think my problem with Jackson's changes is he doesn't allow the noble characters to be truly noble. Perhaps that is more like real life, but it isn't like Tolkien. I love the nobility of Faramir and Frodo. I wish Jackson had been as creative in making Tolkien's story work the way Tolkien wrote it as he was in creating visual effects.
  29. Artemis@BC

    Artemis@BC Well-Known Member

    So .... getting back to The Hobbit ... :shuffle:

    I'm was less than thrilled at the prospect of The Hobbit being 2 movies ... but 3?!? C'mon.

    At this point I'm sorely tempted to skip the movie theatre experience altogether and just watch the whole thing at once on DVD. (Of course I won't, I'll drag myself out there -- but I retain the right to bitch about it.)

    But if I see any more blogs or reviews referring to it as a "LOTR prequel" I might have to hurt someone.
  30. Theatregirl1122

    Theatregirl1122 Enjoying Vicarious Voids!

    The prequel thing drives me nuts. It's not phantom menace.