Peter Jackon's The Hobbit Trailer XMAS detailsMovies 

HBT-DWF-007%5B1%5D_1311289054.jpg

the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-20110716024053789.jpg


http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/121/1212456p1.html

http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2011/...r-to-run-before-the-adventures-of-tintin.html

expect a December trailer release also for the US in front of the movie TINTIN Dec 21st

PS I'm going to geek out when I see it.
 
Last edited:
Should be quality work. 👍 I can't wait to see Peter Jackson's dragon.
 
Can't wait too but realistically I didn't expect Smaug to been shown in the trailer for the first movie. We don't know when/where the "cut" will be made, but here's my guess:

Gandalf goes a different path from the group after they rest in Beorn's house. The book doesn't tell us more but we know (from LOTR appendixes I think) that he went to meet the white council and possibly a elvish army with the purpose of attacking the Necromancer's fortress).


Meanwhile, Bilbo and the dwarves have their "Forest adventures" (spiders, river, elves) and end up in the Elven King's prison.

So, here's the cut, we will have mixed scenes of the White Council's failed "victory" in the South, and, up North, of the escape of the dwarves and Bilbo down the river.

And a glimpse of the Dragon sleeping, just before the end credits :dopey:


Anyway, for those that missed it, here the trailer:


[YOUTUBEHD]JTSoD4BBCJc[/YOUTUBEHD]

And I just loved the song they made for this (starts at 0:50), although we only hear the bolded lines:

Tolkien
Far over the misty mountains cold
To dungeons deep and caverns old

We must away ere break of day
To seek the pale enchanted gold.

The dwarves of yore made mighty spells,
While hammers fell like ringing bells
In places deep, where dark things sleep,
In hollow halls beneath the fells.

For ancient king and elvish lord
There many a gleaming golden hoard
They shaped and wrought, and light they caught
To hide in gems on hilt of sword.

On silver necklaces they strung
The flowering stars, on crowns they hung
The dragon-fire, in twisted wire
They meshed the light of moon and sun.

Far over the misty mountains cold
To dungeons deep and caverns old
We must away, ere break of day,
To claim our long-forgotten gold.

Goblets they carved there for themselves
And harps of gold; where no man delves
There lay they long, and many a song
Was sung unheard by men or elves.

The pines were roaring on the height,
The winds were moaning in the night.
The fire was red, it flaming spread;
The trees like torches blazed with light.


The bells were ringing in the dale
And men looked up with faces pale;
The dragon's ire more fierce that fire
Laid low their towers and houses frail.

The mountain smoked beneath the moon;
The dwarves, they heard the tramp of doom.
They fled their hall to dying fall
Beaneath his feet, beneath the moon.

Far over the misty mountains grim
To dungeons deep and caverns dim
We must away, ere break of day,
To win our harps and gold from him
 
The 1977 Rankin/Bass production of The Hobbit has always been enough for me, so I'm a little nervous about this movie. Especially as I didn't think the LotR movies by Jackson were especially true to either the spirit or the letter of the books....

For a taste of the earlier movie, here's a short sample of the same song (ripped off a record, no less)



great soundtrack on this old movie. this sample is from later in the movie, early on at Bag End there's a full version done which includes all the lyrics.
 
I understand, and even agree, that some plot-tweaks and the portrayal of some characters let true book-fans very dissapointed. I have my own "rage" about Denethor's portrayal. But overall, and considering the "blockbuster" nature of these movies and the audiences they need to captivate, I can understand most of the choices. Mass audiences wouldn't grasp the very british social and military nature of the Sam/Frodo relationship so the simple minded ones everywhere in this world just thought of it as a DADT gay thing LOL! I suppose there's nothing that can be done about it.

Moving on ... I find this new production video (#5 in the series) nothing short of mind blowing. The scale, the logistics involved .... it's unbelievable.


[YOUTUBEHD]_e2pcUSXLAU[/YOUTUBEHD]
 
Billy Connolly, Stephen Fry, Ian McKellen, Christopher Lee, Martin Freeman, Benedict Cumberbatch, Andy Serkis, James Nesbitt.

This film is just a playground for British actors. It's gonna be brilliant.

Also I really, really, really don't understand how anyone can prefer the old animated movies to the PJ ones.
Yes, Jackson diverted from the books, and yes, I don't agree with all the changes made (Frodo at Osgiliath? wat) but they are still one of the greatest cinematic works of our time.

The animated films were, in my opinion, aimed squarely at children, which LoTR wasn't. I mean, Orcs singing? Plus they couldn't even pronounce the locations correctly.

Of course, you're welcome to your opinion, I just don't understand it :lol:
 
Also I really, really, really don't understand how anyone can prefer the old animated movies to the PJ ones.
Yes, Jackson diverted from the books, and yes, I don't agree with all the changes made (Frodo at Osgiliath? wat) but they are still one of the greatest cinematic works of our time.

I edited my version of the PJ movies so that Faramir's character assassination never happened. You can cut right before he says "the ring will go to gondor" or whatever he says in the cave, and then start the osgiliath scene as Faramir sends them on their way to Mordor. Works out perfectly. Looks like he just was thinking about it and made the right decision later. Also gets rid of the retarded Frodo why are you acting like an idiot, I guess that changed Faramir's mind? Scene.

Anyway, thanks for reminding me this even existed. I had managed to forget that I cut the movie.
 
Yeah, Frodo at Osgiliath, and the Witch King shattering Gandalf's Staff, are basically the two scenes of the film I really don't like.

Frodo and Faramir are so out of character. Frodo would never pull a sword on Sam, nor would the Nazgul hesitate in taking the ring when Frodo holds it out to him a moment before that. The whole point of Faramir understanding the ring must be destroyed, and cannot be used, is showing that he is more "pure", I suppose, than Boromir was. This doesn't come across in the film to begin with.

And I shouldn't have to explain why the staff breaking was just preposterous.

To be honest though, after watching all the bonus documentaries on the DVD release, it seems to me it was much more Fran Walsh, rather than PJ, that wanted to add more Hollywood to the films. To me it seemed she missed the point of the books completely.
 
When I said above that I really love the Rankin-Bass production of the Hobbit, I should have also mentioned that I did not hold the animated LOTR movies in such high regard. Currently for me it's the books > RB Hobbit > PJ LOTR > RB LOTR. Which translates to roughly 10/9/8/6. I'm also excited for the PJ Hobbit, I hope it ranks a 9, but even if it's only as good as PJ's LOTR, it'll still be a must see x5.

Keep up the buzz so I can keep looking forward to the movie coming out!

Edit: and I couldn't have said it better than TopGearFTW. So my disgust has been somewhat misplaced it seems, and I can stop being so annoyed with PJ and turn some of it towards this Fran person...
 
Fran is PJ's wife, she helps on every film he does, but it seems (to me anyway) she slightly missed the point with the trilogy.

Edit: Actually I got the names mixed up. Two women helped PJ with the script and whatnot. It's Philippa Boyens who, in my opinion, missed the point.

Apologies to Fran :lol:
 
It was Boyens that came up (in the Extended TTT extras) with an excuse for that Osgiliath sillyness.
Something like: "After we spent 1+ 1/2 movies establishing how the ring was evil and all men would fall for it, we couldn't have a character saying he wouldn't pick it up if it he found it laying on the ground. The audience wouldn't understand and the dramatic pull of the ring would vanish"
(not her exact words, but something close to this in meaning)

I thought it was a pretty bad move from the screenwriters. But the worse, for me, was what they did with Denethor. All the dignity the movies gave to Boromir, they took from Denethor. He was portrayed as a crazy mean old man, when in fact he was the one who:
a) organized the defense of Minas Tirith, by calling all forces from the country to the city (Dol Amroth included ... but not seen in the movies)
b) called for the aid of Rohan, not only by lighting the beacons, but also by sending messengers.

Well, better than me ... some guy/girl on wiki wrote this:

Unlike Saruman, Denethor was too strong to be corrupted by Sauron's lies. In the novel, he began secretly using a palantír to probe Sauron's strength, though he incorrectly insisted he was able to control it. The effort aged him quickly, and the knowledge of Sauron's overwhelming force depressed him greatly, mostly due to deliberately biased visions from the palantír on the part of Sauron. Boromir's death depressed Denethor further, and he became ever more grim. Nonetheless he continued to fight Sauron with every resource at his disposal until the forces of Mordor arrived at the gates of the White City, at which point he lost all hope.
Near the novel's climactic battle, Denethor ordered the warning beacons of Gondor to be lit, and forces were called in from all of Gondor's provinces. The civilian population of Minas Tirith was sent away to safety. As invasion seemed imminent, Denethor sent the Red Arrow to the Rohirrim. The Council decided that Gondor could make no stroke of its own but Denethor ordered Gondor's forces to the outer defences of Osgiliath and the great wall of the Rammas Echor. He wanted to make a stand, since the defences had been built at great expense and not yet been overrun. His son Faramir and the other commanders objected due to the Enemy's overwhelming numbers and preferred instead to defend the city itself, but Faramir nonetheless obeyed out of respect for his father and late brother. Faramir's body, apparently mortally wounded, was returned during the retreat, as the capital city was under siege by vastly superior forces.
This last loss finally broke Denethor's spirit. Denethor committed suicide, having ordered his men to burn him alive on a pyre prepared for himself and Faramir. He took the white rod of his office and broke it over his knee, casting the pieces into the flames. He laid himself down on the pyre and so died, clasping the palantír in his hands.

I cringed - more than I did in the Faramir/Frodo/Osgiliath scene - when I saw Gandalf and Pippin lighting the beacons AGAINST the will of movie Denethor. What a waste of such a tragic character turned just ... vile.

Oh and don't get me started on "warrior Arwen" ... :lol:
 
You know Arwen was originally supposed to fight at Helm's Deep? And the troll Aragorn fights at the Black Gate was originally going to be Sauron?

*shudder*

I'm glad a lot of those ideas were axed.

The only reason Denethor didn't work, in my opinion, was that he came across as mental, rather than as depressed, for want of a better word, by what he saw in the Palantir. They only alluded to the Palantir by saying something like "Gondor's eyes have seen more than you can imagine" or something, when Pippin pledges his services to Denethor.

I liked the beacons as a method of communication much more than the red arrow from the books. Seemed to make more sense to me. It would be much quicker, and that's what you'd want in a time of need.

Arwen's character as a whole was a bit off, they definitely Hollywood-ized that. Also the removal of Glorfindel was kinda justifiable (ANOTHER character to introduce, and then the Council of Elrond is sprung on you)

You do have to kind of see it that the films were intended for die hard fans and newbies all the same. They couldnt very well cater to both. Eight hours of dialogue would be brilliant for the die-hards, but no-one else would be interested.
 
Yeah, I knew that (*shudder* too :lol:). And I understand not having Glorfindel, and I understand not having Tom Bombadill and all that happened before Bree. Too many characters and events to fit in a movie format, some had to remain book-only.

Sam abandoning Frodo I can also deal with (he returns and does what he has to do anyway :P )

But Denethor and Faramir were butchered and I find no reasonable explanation for it.
(Oh and the beacons scene is awesome, but the beacons were also lit in the books, and by Denethor's order no less. He did use both ways of asking for Rohan's help, I guess the Red Arrow Courier was also used to give some intel to Theoden and his army.

PS - Also didn't like the Ents saying "No" and then saying "Yes". Not Entlike, such a quick change of opinion ;)
 
Wasn't that Pippin tricking Treebeard into seeing what Saruman has done, rather than Treebeard just changing his mind?
 
Yes that's how it happened on-screen, and I think in the movie it was made that way to create an awe-effect in the audience. People like to see some "instant rage" on-screen I guess.

As you know, in the books the Ents debate for a looooooong time (as in the movie) and reach a "Yes" to war on their own. Then they do their "last march".

Pippin and Merry were, during the Assembly, with a "young" Ent that was clearly pro-war but not old enough to be in the assembly. You know, Ents with less than 5000 years are to hasty and don't reflect enough :lol:
 
Yeah I know, I loved that "young" Ent. But they were there for about half the book so they had to cut that down.

The Last March of the Ents is still a brilliant scene though. I love when the armies of Isengard are fleeing Helm's Deep, and never noticed the massive forest that's just suddenly appeared infront of them :lol:
 
I think the key for me to enjoying the movies was to separate them from the novels and view them on their own, almost as if they were original stories. Being a big Tolkien fan, who read LOTR for the first time at 12 and about 8~10 times since, this wasn't an easy thing to do. When I first saw the Fellowship of the Ring in the theater and saw Hobbiton brought to life for the first time, it filled me with a sense of joy and giddiness that I hadn't felt since childhood. The series had always been close to my heart, and there it was suddenly, before my eyes, very much as I'd pictured it.

But very quickly, things started to happen:

~ Pippin & Merry setting off fireworks? Seriously?

~ What? Three months after the party and he's leaving?

~ Huh? He's not selling Bag End?

~ Hello, where's Farmer Maggot? And Fatty Bolger?

~ Bree? What??? Where's the Old Forest? Did I fall asleep?

My wife, who was sitting next to me, was killing herself laughing, for reasons I didn't understand. She later told me it was simply watching the wide range of emotions passing my face: From wonder to horror to dejection to anger to disbelief. And back again.

This inevitably happens with nearly any movie one watches after having first read the book. And I understand it because there are some things that simply don't translate well from the written word to on screen action. Things don't flow and directors and and producers and studios are always worried about 'losing' the audience. And regrettably, while attempting to make an enjoyable motion picture, those who are fans of the books, come away rather disgruntled.

One of the worst examples I can think of (Although Clive Cussler (Sahara) would disagree) was the movie Contact from back in the late 90s. Taken on it's own, Contact was good movie. And I thought Jodie Foster was well casted in the part of Ellie. But the message, indeed, the entire purpose of the book, penned by Carl Sagan, was completely lost by that bit of butchery the screen writers performed. I was so disgusted, I nearly walked out of the theater. But I just had to keep telling myself not to compare the two. (It was also for this reason, that I've seen all the Potter films but never thought to read the books) :lol:

Anyway, what I'm getting at, is I realized this and tried my damnedest to watch The Two Towers and Return of the King and take them as movies and not to compare them to the books. And when I did that, I found I enjoyed them much more. I even held off re-reading the stories during the years that the movies were being produced so that it wasn't too fresh in my mind. The elves showing up in Helm's Deep still got a strangled gasp out of me. Followed my a whispered "It's just WRONG!" :yuck::grumpy: Anyway, I intend to do the same with The Hobbit, least I come away disappointed from what I'm sure will be an excellent film. 👍 :D
 
Frodo isn't actually leaving three months after the Party, the extended edition shows Gandalf going to Gondor, and Gollum being captured and taken to Mordor, all that was cut out from the cinema release though.

The stuff about Bag End and Crickhollow wasn't directly central to the story, and that's what made the difference between what made it in and what didn't. They could've added an extra 20 minutes or so showing Frodo buying Crickhollow and all the other stuff that goes on (haven't read the books in quite a while, pretty sure he stays at Crickhollow for a bit?)

Tom Bombadil was cut out for the same reason mentioned above. It's a huge point of contention, though I personally don't see how they could've included it without it looking immensely corny.

The fireworks setting off thing was just a nice way to introduce Merry and Pippin as the more comedic characters. You have to do it somehow.

I really don't understand why people get so riled up about the Elves arriving at Helm's Deep. It might not have happened in the books but it makes sense in my eyes, they are proving that the old alliances are still honoured.

Rather Haldir and his archers fight there than Arwen, right? :P
 
No, rather the EXTENDED edition makes it seem like they're leaving the Shire 3 months after the Long Expected Party. In the theatrical release, it seemed more like 3 days. :lol: In the books, it was > 20 years later. At the time of the party, Peregrin and Meriadoc would have barely been walking.

But as I said, I understand these decisions, even if I don't personally agree with them, because a movie with a huge budget like LOTR, had to be a commercial success. And in order to do so, it had to appeal to a mass audience. It had to quicken the pace, it had to over dramatize the affects and power of the ring, it had to make sense to people who weren't necessarily fans of lore and fiction.

I have little problem with Walsh and Boyens embellishing details or flashbacks such as the battle with Sauron during the Last Alliance or the back story of Smegol, both of which I thought were well done. They were stories which were alluded to by Tolkien but not described in such detail. However, I do have a problem with prominent changes to the story or characters, such as the aforementioned Elven Army at Helm's Deep, Arwen's calling for the Anduin to rise, Hun200kmh's very valid complaints about Denethor and Danoff's distaste at what they did to Faramir, and many others I won't bother to cite. At that point you start 'screwing' with the story arc and you stop telling an abridged version of Tolkien's story and begin telling your own. No it didn't make any sense for the Elves to be there other than as a feel good moment for the audience.

I hate to admit it, but I will agree about old Bombadil though. I never particularly liked the character and often wondered what the heck Professor Tolkien was thinking when writing him. Perhaps some of his free thinking students, decided to slip some LSD into the dear Professor's Earl Grey. Just 5 years after LOTR was published, Tom would seem a common figure from the 60s counter culture. From my very biased perspective, his loss probably only served to make the movie better, considering the tone and urgency the writers were trying to convey. Urgency being a key word. In the movie, Frodo is in a mad rush to leave the Shire, almost running to keep up with Gandalf. In the books, Frodo takes his leave in a much more leisurely manner, both because he's waiting for Gandalf, who was supposed to come back and meet him months earlier, but doesn't, and because he is completely unaware of the danger that's pursuing him. In the books, the urgency slowly unfolds and builds suspense in a classic way, little by little. In the movies, the urgency is thrown at you like a train wreck. (And to be fair, PJ's version was probably more fun to watch, while J.R.R's, more fun to read).

But either way, as I said, the key is to view the movies on their own and try not to compare them with the books. I still feel these uncomfortable twangs from time to time of what "might have been" if they had made those movies for real hardcore Tolkien fans, rather the general masses. But I just have to keep reminding myself, if they had done that, they never would have been made in the first place. And all said, the movies were truly excellent.
 
Last edited:
I thought it was 17 years between the party and Frodo leaving? I dunno, it's been a while since I read the books.

I agree the best thing to do is to look at them as seperate from the books, but I still love the films even if I don't see them as seperate. Sadly most of the people who hate the films cannot get past the fact that it isnt a word-for-word transcription of the book.
 
Well, I can't speak for everybody. But for myself personally, I never expected Jackson to turn the books into actual screenplays. It just wouldn't work. But when you have abridged versions of books, they simply eliminate certain parts of the story, glaze over others and maybe write a brief narrative or synopsis of what's missing so that the reader doesn't get confused.

Jackson, Boyens and Walsh, on the other hand, didn't create an abridged version of LOTR. They took some deep liberties and basically edited, rewrote and recreated parts of the story, to how they wanted it or how they preferred it or simply for dramatic effect. THAT is what I have a problem with. They're not alone. Very few movies are really true to their penned versions, for a myriad of reasons. PJ himself, always seemed to be a very staunch LOTR fan. And he made an effort to stick with the spirit of the books as best as he felt he could, while making his movies. Walsh and Boyens, perhaps less so.

Without making (some of) the changes they did, I'm reasonably certain the movies wouldn't have been nearly as dramatic, exciting, or as popular as they were.
 
The only thing that irked me really, when it comes to them making changes, was not the fact that the changes happened. It was the fact that, for a few of the changes made, they thought that was how Tolkien should've done things in the first place, and that they were improving it.

The only thing I dislike about PJ is his description of the Scouring of the Shire as "the worst part of the book" and didn't have a place in the film.

I agree it probably wouldn't have worked well in the film, as you had just seen the big finale, and the to come back to The Shire and find another "boss" to take care of would be confusing, but to say they left it out because "it's the worst bit of the book" is just cheeky I think.
 
The only thing that irked me really, when it comes to them making changes, was not the fact that the changes happened. It was the fact that, for a few of the changes made, they thought that was how Tolkien should've done things in the first place, and that they were improving it.

Bingo! 👍 I'd venture to guess they felt this way about a great many of the changes they made. And it irks me because LOTR is really timeless. It's a classic piece of literature that doesn't receive the kind of recognition it deserves because it's a fairytale. A piece of fiction. A modern day mythology. Otherwise, I think you could fairly put Tolkien on the same pedestal as Dickens. Or perhaps Chaucer. One day, when we're long gone, perhaps people will. But Tolkien should be remembered for the works he created. And not for how Peter Jackson's team 'thought' it should be. Most people from our generation will remember the movies and not the stories as they were created by their author.
 
Last edited:
It was Boyens that came up (in the Extended TTT extras) with an excuse for that Osgiliath sillyness.
Something like: "After we spent 1+ 1/2 movies establishing how the ring was evil and all men would fall for it, we couldn't have a character saying he wouldn't pick it up if it he found it laying on the ground. The audience wouldn't understand and the dramatic pull of the ring would vanish"
(not her exact words, but something close to this in meaning)

I call BS.

How many other people didn't take the ring? Bilbo gave it up. Elrond didn't take it. Gandalf passed it up. Aragorn let it go. Gimli never tried. Legolas never tried. None of the other hobbits tried (unless you count Sam, which I don't). Boromir resisted for quite a while. Galadriel passed it up. Arwen never tried.

But Faramir? No, that would be a stretch.

(and that's just the characters in the movies. There are more in the books)
 
I call BS.

How many other people didn't take the ring? Bilbo gave it up. Elrond didn't take it. Gandalf passed it up. Aragorn let it go. Gimli never tried. Legolas never tried. None of the other hobbits tried (unless you count Sam, which I don't). Boromir resisted for quite a while. Galadriel passed it up. Arwen never tried.

But Faramir? No, that would be a stretch.

(and that's just the characters in the movies. There are more in the books)

It's a web they wove themselves. The power and pull of the ring, and the insane desire to possess it, which it instilled in others, was dramatically enhanced in the movies compared to the narrative prose. There go those 'liberties' again. :D (Bilbo turning into a demonic monster while he grabs for it in Rivendell, Galadriel putting on a dynamic light show while she 'fights' Sauron's will, and decides what to do etc). So they were almost forced to have do something with Faramir to keep it consistent with their own tweaks and adjustments. In the book, the ring did have such an effect, but only after you wore it for a very long time, such as Bilbo, or as a better example, Gollum, and it could slowly work it's will into the bearer over many hundreds of years. Gandalf & Galadrial's desire and fear to possess it, was based more on their knowledge of what it was, rather than some mysterious psychokinetic force it exerted onto all who approached it.

To be fair, it was said in the books, and more dramatically in the movies, that men were more susceptible to the ring's power. And that was for true, Men of the West, not the scrawny, 1/2 hobbit decedents of Numenor that inherited Middle Earth during the Third Age. ;)
 
Last edited:
I, for one think it would've been more effective for Faramir to flat out refuse the ring.
The scene where he notices the Ring, and is saying things like "My father's respect is within my grasp" and whatnot, would've been much better if it ended with "Pfft, nah. On you go little halflings, tell Gollum to get out of the pool on the way out"

I think so anyway.

Maybe not as comedic as that, mind.
 

Latest Posts

Back