The Hobbit trailer!! [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

The Hobbit trailer!!

Pirata.
12-21-2011, 03:23 AM
ZEOM13UyZ0A

Can't wait :sobbing:

finishingmove
12-21-2011, 03:34 AM
What is this new wizardry ?

finishingmove
12-21-2011, 03:38 AM
Relevant:

VznlDlNPw4Q

Lopez
12-22-2011, 07:23 AM
As a book, the Hobbit was much better than LOTR in my opinion.

Hoping that the movie will follow that pattern :yeah:. Thanks for the link to the trailer!

scoobs
12-22-2011, 07:29 AM
They dispensed with most of the songs and poems in Lord of the Rings in the film versions. It would be a good thing if they did the same here.

Commander Data
12-22-2011, 09:22 AM
As a book, the Hobbit was much better than LOTR in my opinion.


in which regard? (I have not read the books)

tripwires
12-22-2011, 02:57 PM
Looks amazing and I didn't know Martin Freeman's playing Bilbo! :hearts:

EddieNero
12-22-2011, 03:07 PM
As a book, the Hobbit was much better than LOTR in my opinion.



Not sure about this. Hobbit was written as a fairy-tale for children, while LoTR is meant for adults.
I have read "Hobbit" when I was 12 and it really sucked, I have marked this book down as a very infantile and naive story , hopefully the movie will be different.

Bilbo
12-22-2011, 05:02 PM
should be the best movie of the last few years and one of the best of all-time

Sean.
12-22-2011, 05:07 PM
For other obsessives interested people, these are worth watching:

rjMEYjCNGmg

j1ZwFV5YWFI

Y22IbgsinJA

sZKLY7WdPMg

selyoink
12-22-2011, 10:48 PM
Not sure about this. Hobbit was written as a fairy-tale for children, while LoTR is meant for adults.
I have read "Hobbit" when I was 12 and it really sucked, I have marked this book down as a very infantile and naive story , hopefully the movie will be different.

I agree with this. Except I read the Hobbit as a senior in high school. It is definitely a children's book and except for the Gollum chapter the rest of the book is crap.

Certinfy
12-22-2011, 11:02 PM
I'm one of those people who didn't really like the book either. Mind you it's one of the only books I've actually finished so I don't actually know how I got all the way through it. :confused:

Topspindoctor
12-22-2011, 11:35 PM
Not sure about this. Hobbit was written as a fairy-tale for children, while LoTR is meant for adults.
I have read "Hobbit" when I was 12 and it really sucked, I have marked this book down as a very infantile and naive story , hopefully the movie will be different.

LoTR is a kids' fairytale trying to appeal to wider audience IMO. There was nothing great about it...I wish they made a movie based on the Forgotten Realms universe, LoTR is pretty overrated tbh...

Chirag
12-26-2011, 11:21 AM
I kinda preferred LOTR to Hobbit .But LOTR is a great book and really well written .

Mjau!
12-28-2011, 11:42 PM
Not sure about this. Hobbit was written as a fairy-tale for children, while LoTR is meant for adults. I have read "Hobbit" when I was 12 and it really sucked, I have marked this book down as a very infantile and naive story , hopefully the movie will be different.

Which explains why Lopez prefers The Hobbit. :o

Roger the Dodger
12-12-2012, 01:09 PM
Movie is out! Can't wait. :banana:

Lopez
12-12-2012, 02:06 PM
Not sure about this. Hobbit was written as a fairy-tale for children, while LoTR is meant for adults.
I have read "Hobbit" when I was 12 and it really sucked, I have marked this book down as a very infantile and naive story , hopefully the movie will be different.

I agree with this. Except I read the Hobbit as a senior in high school. It is definitely a children's book and except for the Gollum chapter the rest of the book is crap.

Well I did read them both when I was young so :p. Might be the reason. Should probably try to read them again.

Hobbit hasn't gotten great reviews here, just normal 3/5. It might have been a mistake to make it in three parts. Will probably see it though, the movie will be well-made if nothing else. For me, LOTR was more impressive in the costumes and settings etc. than in storytelling.

Certinfy
12-12-2012, 03:41 PM
Fuck reviews, I mean reviews say movies like The Hunger Games are good when in reality I know i'm speaking for quite a few people when I say it's hugely overrated shit.

Comes out tomorrow here but will have to find someone to go see it with, everyone I know isn't interested in seeing it. :o

Kowchi
12-12-2012, 03:51 PM
I literally am :bounce:

SO STOKED.

Pirata.
12-12-2012, 05:49 PM
Fuck reviews, I mean reviews say movies like The Hunger Games are good when in reality I know i'm speaking for quite a few people when I say it's hugely overrated shit.

:hearts:

Hunger Games books were decent but the film was garbage.

Orange Wombat
12-12-2012, 06:30 PM
YES!! :sobbing: can't wait! I hope they show Balin :)


The Hobbit is a cute, neat little book, unlike LOTR which is complex, long, and full of pointless songs.

Ben.
12-12-2012, 07:29 PM
Oh the songs..... I always read them in a random tune and then couldn't stop reading that way for a few pages :o

selyoink
12-12-2012, 09:48 PM
I always just skipped over the songs.

Sophitia36
12-12-2012, 10:00 PM
:hearts:

Hunger Games books were decent but the film was garbage.

I disagree completely... The film was one of the best adaptations I've seen. Strictly as an adaptation, I think it's far better than the LoTR movies. Although of course the LoTR movies have had a far greater impact on me.

I agree with those who say that the LoTR books are not necessarily that great... I think the reason why they're rated so high is more because of their influence, than because they are perfect. The same could be said about the films, actually.
I read LoTR a long time ago, but I remember being really bored by some passages, especially in the first book. The 2nd and 3rd books were far better, but still some parts were far more fascinating than others (I enjoyed reading Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli's adventures in Rohan and Helm's Deep far more than I enjoyed reading Merry and Pippin with the Ents :D)


Regarding The Hobbit, I remember very little of the book, and I am trying hard to keep my expectations relatively low. I will have to choose between seeing it in English in 3D, and seeing it in French in 2D. I think I'll have to go for the English 3D version, but I hate 3D so that will probably lessen my enjoyment of the film.
I also try to watch as little material from the film as I can before actually seeing it... In the past, whenever I have tried to watch sneak peeks and making-of vids and multiple trailers, it has innjured my chances of truly appreciating the movie.

Anyway, in my city, they showed the LoTR film trilogy in the cinema before the Hobbit came out, and it was such a great experience to see them again after 10 years! For all their flaws, I am still crazy about these movies and they will forever have a special place in my heart.

EliSter
12-12-2012, 10:05 PM
Hunger games is peace of crap together with Twilight crap. I heard Hobbit aint anything special i will watch it in 2 days tho. I hope next 2 parts will make it up. Lord of the rings is amizing book and fantastic movie. Nothing ever will come close to movie based on a book that is better then LOTR.

Certinfy
12-12-2012, 10:11 PM
Hunger games is peace of crap together with Twilight crap. I heard Hobbit aint anything special i will watch it in 2 days tho. I hope next 2 parts will make it up. Lord of the rings is amizing book and fantastic movie. Nothing ever will come close to movie based on a book that is better then LOTR.
As bad as the Twilight movies are I actually think I would rather watch one of them over The Hunger Games. Don't even know how anyone liked the movie, didn't even know it was possible to create a movie even worse and overrated than the Twilight ones but I guess they succeeded. Another one are the Harry Potter movies though, can't believe how overrated they are.

Couldn't agree more with your last statement. If anything lets be real, The Hobbit is only being deemed as 'nothing special' because The LOTR raised the bar so high for movies of this kind. I'm sure all us fans will love it so forget what everyone else says really.

kinski76
12-12-2012, 10:13 PM
'The Hobbit'. 'Star Trek'. I'd rather have Freeman and Cumberbatch return for an another season of 'Sherlock' (which is gonna happen anyway, but I hate the delay).

The Prince
12-12-2012, 11:03 PM
Looking forward to seeing the Hobbit. It's a story close to my heart, and one that I will enjoy seeing on screen no matter the quality of the film.

Ben.
12-13-2012, 09:57 PM
Saw it today. Bit of a mixed bag. Jackson really invites the comparisons to the LotR trilogy.

Spoilers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes it is padded, though I didn't find it to be too much of problem for the most part. Sequences of Smaug attacking Erebon and of Radagast the wizard are worthy and interesting additions.

However, we have the invented goblin king and another particularly nasty orc, similar to the one in the Fellowship film (At least, I think these only exist in the film. It's been 11 years since I've read the novel so maybe this criticism is bullshit). Still, the problem is these antagonists are just the worst kind of cardboard villains. Just stock obstacles that bear no real significance or add any real tension.

All of the dwarves, except Thorin, lack development. So we follow this large party of mostly indistinguishable characters.

The film starts in essentially the exact same place as the LotR films, prior to Bilbo's birthday. So we have Ian Holm and Elijah Wood reprising their roles in what I assume will be bookends for the trilogy. This is the most obvious way Jackson invites the comparisons, by structuring this trilogy in the same manner. I find this strange as at first he didn't want to direct and gave the project to Guillermo del Toro because he wanted The Hobbit to stand on its own. Yet it seems he does everything he can to relate it to his previous trilogy.

The choice to end it at the "out of the frying pan, into the fire" part is pretty unsatisfying too. Being rescued by the birds ends the film on a big deus ex machina. Yes I know this happened in the novel but making it the climax of this film places more emphasis on it.

These are just some rambling thoughts I had after seeing it today. I did mostly enjoy it. I just wish instead of extended action sequences and big set pieces to fill the length out, we could have had some character building.

Sophitia36
12-14-2012, 06:17 PM
As bad as the Twilight movies are I actually think I would rather watch one of them over The Hunger Games. Don't even know how anyone liked the movie, didn't even know it was possible to create a movie even worse and overrated than the Twilight ones but I guess they succeeded. Another one are the Harry Potter movies though, can't believe how overrated they are.

I love how it's fashionable to say the Hunger Games is crap with nothing to back the statement whatsoever, just because it was a big blockbuster with way too much advertising.

I do know people who loved the movie, and they're not the kind of people who know nothing about cinema or who only go to see stupid blockbusters (nor are they the kind of people who fawn over Twilight).
The Hunger Games is very faithful to the books. Contrary to about 90% of film adaptations, I saw no decision to depart from the book that didn't make any sense (I can find plenty of examples of that in the LOTR saga and in most movie adaptations). Of course I did regret a few omissions (for instance, Foxface was a little too overlooked, I liked the character in the book) but you're bound to omit some elements or else the film will be deemed too long for lazy moviegoers. The few additions that they did make (for instance regarding Seneca Crane at the end) were rather good, I thought.
The actors are far better than actors usually are in such films. I thought they were all well cast. The costumes and sets were very well designed and very faithful to the book.
The only thing I did not really like was the shaky cam, it's just not my thing. But it does have a justification: it is how they chose to reproduce the narrative technique of the book (1st-person narrative in the present tense, extreme focalisation on Katniss's subjectivity and on the "survival" mode she's in all the time). So it absolutely makes sense and though it can be irritating to some viewers, it certainly does not make the movie "crap".


Now, as much as I love the LOTR trilogy, I would have far more complaints about the treatment of certain passages and characters. I was glad that they omitted certain parts of the book that were already boring in writing (IMO) and would probably have been even worse on film (Tom Bombadil... the Old Forest...). I understand that they have to use "compression", so I don't mind too much when they substitute one character with another in order not to multiply secondary characters (ex: Arwen instead of Glorfindel).
But in my opinion, Jackson made a lot of choices that are bad and the justifications he gave were not convincing. He had to leave a great number of good scenes out of the theatrical version, and you could argue the reason was that there was too much material to cover. That would have been a legitimate excuse, if only he had not added a number of really repetitive and unnecessary elements (all the "fake deaths" of Frodo, then Aragorn... the countless declarations of love between Frodo and Sam, which are moving at first, but quickly become irritating and even laughable). He fucked up two very interesting characters, Faramir (by turning him into a 2nd Boromir, when he's meant to be the opposite), and Grima (by turning him into some sort of wizard, when he's just a very shrewd man who can lull people into inaction and decadence by the sole power of his poisonous words). The editing is also often atrocious in the 2nd and 3rd movies (the story is already fragmented, but they make it worse by cutting very dramatic scenes in 2 or even 3 parts in a completely unnecessary fashion - Eowyn vs the King Sorcerer is prob the best example).
Now, I still respect Jackson immensely for having the balls to make the films, because no one believed he could do it at the time, and yet he did it, he provided me and certainly countless others with one of their best movie experiences ever, and he changed cinema forever, too.

I still haven't seen the Hobbit, I'm going to see it tomorrow. Unfortunately it will be in 3D, and I hate 3D, so I'm ready to be disappointed at least in that respect... But who knows?

Sunset of Age
12-14-2012, 11:38 PM
Very much looking forward to Martin Freeman's adaptation of Bilbo. :yeah:

At least a MATURE actor taking up the leading role - you might curse me for this, but I always found Mr. Wood's adaptation of Frodo in LoTR being completely over the top, with all the whining, falling over, and turning out a complete WHIMP at times - the most horrible scene being 'sending Sam off home' at the Stairs of Cirith Ungol, which, imho, BOOK!Frodo would never have done, and coming close to Character Murder. I don't blame Mr. Wood for that, I do blame Mr. Jackson for directing his persona to a juvenile audience a lot for that. Most definitely not how I depicted Mr. Frodo from the books - quite a genuine hero, really. ;)
(just my personal opionion of course)

Hope Mr. Freeman does a better job, and according to the (slighly) positive reviews in the newspapers over here so far, he does. :)

I have a lot more gripes with Jackson's LotR, most of all them being idiocy of 'Brego-the-wonder-horse', Arwen :help: :tape:, Haldir :o, etc., but don't get me started on it all.
I do respect him for having made that trilogy at all, don't get me wrong - it remains a pleasant watch whenever I see it again. :)

The Prince
12-15-2012, 04:08 PM
Really fantastic watch. Couldn't have asked for a better beginning to the trilogy of films, if you ask me.

Roger the Dodger
12-15-2012, 05:35 PM
Watched it! :banana:

The Hobbit has a slower pace than LOTR but lets not forget the latter had a lot more material to make shorter, whereas here, its vice versa. For me, it works fine as a companion adventure series to its sibling with similar cast of characters. I love the tidbits that connect Hobbit's timeline to LOTR's which takes place about 60 years after the Hobbit such as how Sauron's ring fell into Bilbo Baggin's hands; how Frodo goes to receive Gandalf in the beginning of the Hobbit movie to set up the LOTR adventure. A bit of chemistry between Gandalf and Cate Blanchett. Action scenes were typical Peter Jackson. I am amazed at the director's appetite to make such long movies, but of course, I am not complaining. I would have in fact preferred three hours instead of "only" 160 minutes as it stands now, but maybe they couldn't stretch the lesser material further.

And yes, Howard Shore's haunting score when the ring makes a brief appearance still brings a nice chill. I loved the ride, I can't complain.