Yes it is totally out of the question. Seems about as justified as sexually confused frat boys reading homosexuality into Frodo and Sam's relationship due to some tactility and concerned glances. It's complete hyperbole from overly critical fanboys.

It is in no way the same as inserting an alliance of men and elves into the LOTR proper, when several such alliances occured after the Last Alliance in the legendarium proper. Gandalf the Home-Wrecker is such an absurd reach by PJ haters that it discredits much else of what they complain about.

I believe Kuru is correct in that none posting here are really slagging the movie based on that single scene; we're just having fun with the potential for an eye-rolling viewing experience.

Again, if it's a "reach" that some are using to abuse poor, rich-beyond-the-dreams-of-avarice PJ and Co., I don't think it's anyone here doing it.

Are you serious...

It is exactly the same in the context of Jackson having no respect for the story or characters that Tolkien created, a lack of respect he demonstrated time and time again throughout the original trilogy. The elves at Helm's Deep were merely the most comical example of when Jackson went off the rails and into Loonyland.

Other more serious examples include (but aren't limited to) the destruction of the character of Faramir, the mutilation of the character of Theoden, the mutilation of the character of Gandalf (referring to the beat down he laid upon Denethor), the mutilation of the character of Arwen, the misplacement and misuse of the army of the dead...which was brought on by the abuse done to the course of the Battle of the Pelennor by Jackson, the silly antics of Legolas, the absurd detour Frodo was forced to make as a result of the destruction of Faramir, the stupidity of the side trip Aragorn made on the way to Helm's Deep, the degradation inflicted on the quality of the dialogue by Jackson and the destruction to the general public's conception of the Balrog by Jackson deciding to go with Howe's ludicrous depiction of it.

And those are just the things I can think of off the top of my head without really trying.

While I'm certainly just having some laughs at the Gandalf/Galadrial romp possibility, there is no character or story defacement that can be *completely* put past Jackson and Company at this point. They destroyed their own credibility through their own actions, nobody else had a hand in it.

Oh, and...

This is certainly news to me. :eek:

The only possible example I can think of is the Woodelves helping the Lakemen at the Battle of Five Armies but that wasn't the same sort of thing at all.

While it's highly unlikely there'll be any sort of spicy Istari romance in the movie, if PJ did deign to insert that into the story, he'd be well deserving of all the insults and rotten tomatoes I could throw.

My first thought upon seeing the trailer was "Galadriel and Gandalf, whhaaa?" A romance? No. A tender moment that looks awkward in the trailer? Oh yes.

The dwarven song was cool, very haunting. Based on that quick trailer I am looking forward to seeing it. PJ does know how to make a good movie even if his adaption of books stray from the original the further he moves along in the story.

Does anyone know if Howard Shore will be doing the score? Or have they just taken his themes and found a new composer? I doubt and hope not.

I am fairly sure it is just by ear...and I think I read it was but if it isnt' Shore someone is a musical "forger" par excellance...


And yes the reaction to Galadriel and Gandalf was not that I thought even PJ would take enough liberty to have some bizarre romance going on more "What are they doing to the story this time?"

Exactly. It is clear what it is: probably some sort of "I am afraid of Sauron and the rest of the Council even does not support me" - "No, I trust you, even if all the others don't" moment, or something like that.

But what I find peculiar is that they decided to put it into the trailer: because, what are people who aren't that familiar with Tolkien lore going to think when they see it? What purpose does it serve? They already show both G's in the trailer, so they don't need to prove any more to the audience that they are going to be there; or if they wanted to show a scene where the two of them are together, then surely there would be even a different scene. But this scene so much opens to the "what is it, a romance?" interpretation that it seems really strange to me that they included it, of all things. Surely they must have known.

P.S. And by the way - I find it funny, because if there is a person who is completely against the movie adaptations of LotR, it is me, but I find the accusations of PJ's "crimes" on this thread surprisingly strong. He is definitely guilty of all that, but for me at least, that didn't mean that I wouldn't be able to give him another chance. I still thought he could make a decent enough movie out of TH. Like I said, though, the trailer did not convince me much about that and right now it seems that he indeed failed the same as with LotR. However, once again like I said, that is only judging by the impressions - the whole movie can still be completely different from the trailer. So I'll wait to see.

Yes, he's doing the music again.

It's pretty much a hyperbole to find any kind of sexuality whatsoever in the Lord of the Rings, but you don't have to be sexually confused or a frat boy to mistake homosociality for homoeroticism.

Imagining I saw the trailer as someone who didn't know their Tolkien, I'd find the prospect of a non-asexual wizard very fascinating. ;)

Hate to break it to you, but you are the queer one here. Show that scene to ten people unfamiliar with the characters and I'd bet that at least nine would see a romantic moment (with sexual connotations).

Do I think that Galadriel and Gandalf will have any R-rated moments together, explicit or implied? No I don't see that happening. Will they have a romance, or the bud of one? Probably not.

I can however easily imagine PJ's Galadriel as a temptress or a tease if you will. A benign manipulator. Perhaps she is testing Gandalf's moral fibres, or something to that effect, him being incarnated as a Man, not immune to Men's inherent weaknesses' and lusts?

It was certainly a very intimate gesture. Girls will style each others hair but caressing someone's hair is beyond normal social contact. It is in the realm of the closest relationships ...of course the conventions of elf society may be different but I have always got the feeling that they had a bit of a "thing" about nice hair.. I know they are all tall slender and beautiful but it is the feature that gets commented on..

It's interesting to see the row over the scene with Galadriel and Gandalf when it is one of my favourites in the whole trailer...

I mean I do share some, if not many, of Legate's concerns and criticisms, but as we know already that they're going to put some stuff of their own in there whether we like it or not, that part didn't look the worst of it. On the contrary.

Let's not let the physical embodiments of these beings lead us astray: Gandalf and Galadriel have known each other for thousands of years and I think Tolkien let's us understand they have a close relationship (which doesn't have to mean anything sexual to be sure) and they seem to admire each other... and they're the guardians of the rings... So bringing that part of their mutual history forwards looks like a decent addition (comparing to many other ones others and I have already said we hated in the LotR).

And really, even if the porn industry may take it's turn with that one, to me it felt nothing like what is discussed here (even as a joke). Skip may be right in saying PJ's vision might be Galadriel pressing Gandalf for some cause she seems fit, but I'd bet on the scene being more about her trying to soothe him like old friends do.

And I really pray I'm not wrong... :(


On other issues I do like the different beards (even the smaller ones) and agree that the polish cavalry -style looks fresher than the age old Viking-stereotypes. But - like I think I already complained some elsewhere - why have they made Thorin Oakenshield look and feel like he is? It's easy to see they're trying to pull the same strings they did with casting Orlando Bloom and Elijah Wood on LotR and less easy to see him as Thorin Oakenshield of the book.


But here I pray I'm wrong and Mr. Armitage proves to be an actor to fill the boots of Thorin even if he doesn't have the looks or the feel of a stout, old, revered leader of the dwarves...

You know in ROTK Legolas gives Aragon what can only be described as the weirdest set of bedroom eyes ever and I don't remember PJ fleshing out a love story based on that.

Scenes like Galadriel caressing a, what looks to me, clearly distressed Gandalf isn't anything but a tender moment that looked weird in the trailer. Though, the conversation that has cropped up here about it is amusing. I look forward to seeing Galadriel back because I am very fond of Cate Blanchett's acting. I also look forward to seeing how well Thorin and Bilbo pull off their roles.

I'm glad this made-up female elf hasn't made it in the trailer.

I was responding to skip's point that to someone who didn't know the context they might get the wrong idea. I still think it is a bit odd though once again I say I never extrapolated that there would be a G on G romantic subplot. It may have been that Gandalf had a buzz cut the last time she saw him and she is osanwe kenta-ing "ooh you've grown your hair you really need some conditioner on the split ends"..

I love Cate Blanchett and I don't think Galadriel could have been better cast or played but I suspect she may have featured in the trailer because she is the token female and a big Hollywood name.

Richard Armitage may not be the obvious choice for a dwarf but he is a serious man. An actor who is prepared to be water-boarded for a part might get a little grudging dwarvish respect.

After viewing the trailer, I must say I was not aware of that many shades of gray in the color palette. Having read the book more times than I can recount, I can honestly say that gray is not the color that comes to mind. Perhaps because I don't think in black and white.

After viewing the trailer several times, I'm sure our general reaction to the actual movie will be similar to that of LOTR. We'll be exicited to see our beloved book presented (again) in film. We may generally like it, but we will have many small and larger problems with the portrayal.

Galadriel is in the trailer because she is portrayed by a famous actress. It is advertisement. I was surprised that Elrond was not shown.

There will be a lot of time devoted to making this movie "fit" with the LOTR movie storyline, obviously. Much of the movie will deal with Gandalf's adventures figuring out who the Necromancer is (i.e. Sauron), foreshadowing LOTR. I suspect that is where Gandalf is wandering among stone ruins. He has to get the map that shows the secret door on the Lonely Mountain.

Regarding film portrayal of the "humor" of The Hobbit: I did notice that towards the end of the trailer there is a momentary scene that looks like the "cleaning up" scene that occurs after a meal in Bilbo's home in the book. I wonder if Gandalf will ask for cold chicken and pickles?

What is there to be excited about? We know the plot and we know how PJ does things in ME - ad the trailer has confirmed it will be moulded to fit LOTR. The only variables are the additions and changes hinted at by casting which is more the macabre curiosity that inspires folk to rubberneck at a car crash rather than excitement.

While obviously we all know the books and perhaps the vast majority of Hobbit viewers will have seen LOTR but... even if you know what the story is with a film you sort of put that on hold and appreciate they don't know what will happen to them. Somehow the whole film being done as a flashback to Frodo is a handicap to that. Even within the context of the trailer, even if you went to that trailer in complete ignorance of Tolkien and the Jackson films you are informed instantly that everything is going to turn out alright in the end because Bilbo is telling it from the perspective of a safe and prosperous old age. It just makes all that portentous "will I return? I can't guarantee it.. I am not responsible for his fate " stuff utterly pointless

Indeed. They're very old friends so why wouldn't they be touchy-feely? Personally, I got over my shock that they weren't doing The Hobbit 'straight' a long time ago and I admit I'm quite interested and even excited to see how this stuff with The White Council pans out. I'm sure this scene is something to do with that. And aside from anything else, it might give me a chance to see Chris Lee as Saruman on screen again.

The new cast members chosen really are good choices. People outside the UK might not know them all very well or even at all because most of them are best known from TV shows in the UK. Richard Armitage is a fantastic actor and can turn his hand to any number of different roles. He's outshone anything Colin Firth could do in a costume drama lead role and stole the show in Robin Hood. Though I have to say in response to the dubbing of Aidan Turner as 'Kiligolas' that here you have pinpointed the wrong man. It's Armitage that has the fanatical following, including 'The Armitage Army'.

Aidan Turner himself is a great choice. He was vampire Mitchell in Being Human. I tend to think that he was chosen not for his looks but because Being Human has a devoted cult following and his presence will reel in the SF geeks.

Martin Freeman I've said all along would make the perfect Bilbo. In The Office, the whole series ended up not being about the Ricky Gervais character but about Freeman's character Tim, and his relationship with Dawn.

This is without even considering Ken Stott, James Nesbitt, Sylvester McCoy (another geek pleasing choice) and Benedict Cumberbatch. The only choice that I hate is Barry Humphries as the Great Goblin which reduces the role to pure pantomime, and I'm not convinced Stephen Fry won't chew up the scenery.

Kiligolas being Kiligolas has nothing to do with the actor himself or anything he may or may not have previously done. I don't think it’s the actor's fault.

It has everything to do with Kiligolas not looking anything like a dwarf (note the discussion above where people couldn't figure out whether he was a ranger or a cameraman who wandered into shot or whatever) and overall he just looks like a pretty boy Ranger...ergo Kiligolas. I would have called him "Kiligorn" but I thought that sounded weird.

I agree, good analogy. I also don't fully like of Jackson's "vision" of Middle Earth, nor the liberties he takes, and especially the silly parts designed to appeal to the masses. We will undoubtedly get boat-loads of the same in this movie. Sigh. I wish there had been a different director for The Hobbit, at least then we could expect something different. But there's nothing to be done about it, so despite it all I still look forward to this movie.

Or wait for it to be on telly...;)

That's the ticket. Just as I'll not help George Lucas further line his pockets by buying his new Star Wars Blue-ray set (deleted scenes be darned), there's no reason I necessarily have to help PJ buy that new Bentley. :p

Well seeing as you particularly like Dwarves, I can see I can't get round you ;)

But for me, my particular 'thing' is Hobbits, and this is one race that Jackson gets consistently right in my eyes, so it tends to forgive him a host of sins. I've seen endless completely awful representations of Hobbits (the Hildegard Brothers and Ted Nasmith* being prominent offenders) so when I saw what Jackson had done with them I was delighted. :p

*I just want to take their paintbrushes away and tell them "Look, if you have an urge to paint pictures of stunted, twisted little people, then why don't you go and specialise in illustrating George RR Martin novels, I'm sure they could do with another picture of Tyrion Lannister". Grrr.

So...hmmm...yes....given my feelings on that then I can see why they don't make the grade for you!

FINALLY seen it! (No youtube at my house!)

I like it.

The Hobbit is a children's book. The film is not going to be a children's film. No point in making one as it wouldn't be worth it. I have accepted that now and am looking forward to it! I think if they are able to recreate the 'feeling' that Fellowship managed then it will hold enough of the hobbitness of the book to be enjoyable.

Martin Freeman looks fantastic. Beardgate aside the dwarves look pretty good. Gandalf looks much better as Gandalf the Grey and was far more canon-friendly in that guise in LotR.

I love that with Andy Serkis back as Gollum we are going to hopefully get a full version of Bilbo finding the Ring.

Ok, all the portentous "I won't be responsible for his fate" etc bits are a little over the top. That said, 'his fate' doesn't have to mean death. If you have an audience familiar with LotR it's actually a nice nod to the future plot. Which makes it slightly anachronistic for Thorin to be saying but if you will hang out with Wizards ...

Are we going to get more trailers given it's still a year away?!

Almost three years after my last visit and here I am lamenting having to wait a year! It's like the good ol' days all over again, waiting for December!

Kuruharan above is correct on the LotR movies (parts 2 and 3). On balance FotR was fine, it's the only one I can rewatch through. It's hard to say what the worst PJ screw up was, messing with my favorite characater (Faramir), Gandalf ignoring the specific ban on wizards physically assaulting M-E people, the Green Slime, etc.

As to the preview, so far the movies seem to be better then I had thought they'd be. PJ does have the difficult task of making TH movie more attuned to LotR then the book Hobbit and LotR. As noted above, the music and scenery seem still the best part of the project.Little touches, lots of the dwarves piling in at once seems a necessary alteration going from book to movie. The problem with a troll fight is not its existence (there was one between Thorin and Bilbo with them, but rather the way PJ will almost certainly go over the top.

An under control PJ (a rather unlikely scenario) would confine each movie to one BIG battle each---at the end of Part I Dol Guldur, and Part II the Battle of Five Armies,
with a minor scuffle with the wolves and goblins with the Eagles swooping in in Part I.

As for Bombur, reread The Hobbit and you'll see he was very much comic relief constantly.

Dwarves
 

I have found something brilliant on the Interwebz that sums up Jackson's dwarves perfectly.

Dwarves

As for the latter statement, isn't that great though? Puts the world as it should be.

There ought to be a Tolkien-based film released every December for us to anticipate. :smokin:

As memory serves, we weren't given much more in the year leading up to each of the first three films. That was a decade ago, mind.

If more was given, I avoided them like the plague.

I loved first 'teaser' trailer for The Fellowship Of The Ring which was mainly landscape shots, particularly the pan along the Anduin, but as for actual book scenes and such, I prefer to see the film in its entirety without any spoiling. Anyone with me on that?

Thy tongue. Bite upon it. :p

PJ's already done the spoiling. ;)

Honestly though, I probably won't see it in the theater unless my daughter expresses interest.

In light of the Klingo-dwarf revelation, I think its obvious that Leonard Nimoy must play the Elvenking and William Shatner should play Bard.

The resulting scene in which Thranduil and Bard negotiate with Bilbo for the Arkenstone would go rather like this.

While Bard's defeat of Smaug will probably end up resembling this.

Attempting to change the subject from sexual confusion between Elves and Maiar - thank you, davem, for posting the fan trailer, in my opinion it's much better than the original.
Especially Gandalf's pretty much pointless recital of the Dwarves' names bothered me.

The Dwarves still make me think of this.

John Travolta ought to get an eagle costume in this and be CGI'd carrying Bilbo in his talons. :D

So, I was thinking (as I often do), the movie Bifur has a bit of an axe embedded in his head -- were you aware that the word "bifurcate" means the splitting of a main body into two parts? I wonder if the splitting of Bifur's skull is a subtle allusion to the like word?

Taken one step further, can PJ even be that subtle?

Subtle? at least often enough I think Jackson rather prefers to hit his viewers on the head...

... waitamminit! that might explain things afterall ;)

Can I just say that Martin Freeman just looks like a hobbit?

You're not alone. :)

He looks like Watson to me. :p

Can I just say that Martin Freeman looks more like a Hobbit than half the Dwarves look like Dwarves? They're more of a Star Trek convention than a party of Naugrim. But someone on another forum made the case that the younger members appear as hawt dorfs to give the mindless audience some eye-candy until the film can get to Orly in Mirkwood.

Somehow, I don't think the summation is far off.