Now that I'm not so sure about.

I'm basing my hope on the interaction on the Gollum scene in the first movie being ok.

And whatever happens, we can feel fairly confident that DOS won't be as bad as this.

"The barrelriding is not an extended chase scene."

"The barrelriding is an extended chase scene."

Who knew I could write like the Professor?

And doesn't making the barrelriding into a dwarves vs monkeys with bows rollercoaster take away Bilbo's part in the whole story?

Sorry but this is not true. He's clearly red clouded in shadow. But I guess his underbelly will still be golden.

Yeah odd thet usually in Tolkien as opposed to our world everyone usually wonders who the mother was.

Bard will climb up his back and put an arrow in his head for good measure, then he'll surf down the tail and land safely before Legolas. Then Legolas will think this over and over and decide to do it years later on the fields of Pelennor.

When I went to see the first Hobbit, I went with an open mind. I was impressed by the first teaser trailer, if a bit turned off by the second. But I loved the trilogy as movies. I thought they were well done and well cast and appreciated them as movies, not book adaptations. I saw the first Hobbit and it had its moments, but the CGI was distracting. It just didn't look good to me. Normally this isn't something that bothers me, but there was something about the Goblin King's CGI that was just...ugh. So the first Hobbit movie did to Middle Earth what Phantom Menace did to Star Wars (speaking from a strictly movie going perspective.) Too much effects and none of the set building charm of the trilogy. Because the CGI scenes in that meshed well with the built sets most of the time.

Now I watch this trailer and am in no way excited. I'll still see it. I'm interested how PJ and co will pull it off, but I agree with the thread title. It really does look crap.

And when they didn't make superhero/fantasy movies they were neglecting the geek demographic... There is no pleasing some people.

Obviously the "exploitation" element is getting stronger and stronger, more and more of the studios budgets go into these kind of films and so the artistic control is limited, which is regrettable. However I am very pleased these kind of movies are getting made...

And now onto the trailer...

It looks awesome!

It does not look like the hobbit though.

However, I will quite happily sit and watch PJ's fanfiction, be entertained, and supplied with plenty of ammunition to shoot down people who dare see it as an actual adaptation of the book.

I do agree that it is infuriating, how PJ feels the need to go overboard with CGI and weird action sequences. He must be compensating for something. ..

A choice between lots of CGI and weird action sequences that millions of people will flock to watch, or a faithful adaptation of Tolkien's work that a handful of fans who post on the Barrow-Downs will applaud? Wonder why he went for the former?

I'm with you here, but isn't there some middle ground?

I found AUJ completely forgettable, but could watch Iron Man (not book-based) or the Harry Potter flicks (strayed from their source material) again and again.

I am not saying you don't have a point here but even before the films the books were ugely welll known and loved and successful. LOR was the Waterstones book of the century. I suggest that had Ackson created an original fantasy film series it would have not attracted the audience it did. People like me who were too old too female and not regular film goer enough to be a target market went because it was Tolkien not Jackson. And we took our younglingsand so they were corrupted... so actually I think PJ owes Tolkien quite as much as the reverse. And from the mainly negative reaction to what is a very Tolkienlite trailer suggests that PJ has got carried away and lost sight of the basics. E does seem to have alienated a lot od people who liked LOTR. The Hobbit is a simple tale and ot shoud have its focus on the eponymous hero. Jackson said that his version of LOTr was Frodos storyPersonally I think there was a case for making the Rings more Aragorn's story but that doesn't mean the Obbit should be done as Thorin's.

Well, if good Mr. Jackson isn't interested in pleasing me with his films, I in turn have no wish to help him line his pockets. :)

guys, guys... before I add my opinions to this, might I just show you a picture I did after seeing the trailer?

Spoilers in case you don't want to see what "Schmaog" (Peter Jackson pronounciation) looks like: http://i.imgur.com/9AdGnMa.jpg

I link this article because we can clearly see some of the trends Spielberg is referring to playing out in the development of The Hobbit movies.

I don't believe I said it was a choice between those two scenarios.

I will quite happily watch PJ's action fan fiction, but even within the genre of action movies, I find that he goes over the top with the CGI action. It is almost reminiscent of an 80's action film, where a protagonist could walk into an enemy base, kill a thousand well trained soldiers and walk out again unharmed. All I am asking for is, instead of fighting a bajillion orcs to escape the Misty Mountains, maybe they could fight eighty.

Oh, gosh, how arrogant of us to express our opinion. :p

And it isn't even a question of the kind, degree or style of adaptation that Jackson has chosen. (Yes, film studies does identify a variety of methods of adaptation.) It is also a question of how well Jackson has put together an action flick with lots of CGI.

I've already given an example of a movie with a superb use of CGI that enhances the narrative rather than becoming a main feature--Life of Pi.

And others here have pointed out the AUS really fails many of the qualities of a good action flick. It lacks aesthetic discipline and goes for momentary thrills at the expense of the overall story. The Avengers is a far, far better done action movie--as others here have pointed out.

So the grounds of criticising Jackson's Hobbit movies are really based on two points: the quality or nature of its adaptation of Tolkien's books--a point which you seem to think is limited to the few of us here, never mind the other Tolkien sites online that discuss this issue--and its quality as a well constructed action/adventure flick. There are Downers here who aren't particularly bothered by a lack of fidelity to Tolkien's vision and ethos but who do object to a badly constructed action flick. It remains to be seen whether Jackson holds the interest of fans of action flicks.

And I think Kuru's link about comments from Spielberg and Lucas are particularly apt here. Nice find,Kuru.

I have many memories of you and of the lushious one. In particular, I remember the wall frescoes of trees you were painting.

Smaug reminds me too much, in the trailer, of the T-Rex in Jurassic Park, which to my mind does not make him decent competition for a balrog.

Thank you. :)

This is probably an instance of them being too far into the forest to see the trees, but I wish he would have made mention of the degenerating quality of storytelling in the big blockbuster as well...as that will play a major role when/if the whole thing goes kablooie.

He seems to treat it as an element of blind chance eventually happening (which I suppose to some extent it is) but I think willful laziness and cynicism will play the largest roles.

PJ's LOTR films seemed much more like Aragorn's story to me, although that's maybe because I think he portrayed Tolkien's men far better than the hobbits. Frodo has a lot of screen time, for instance, in FOTR, but I just find the way he's portrayed in all three films very misguided (well, nigh-on excruciating, if the truth be told). I know the "reluctant king" aspect of PJ's Aragorn isn't canon, but to me it's far less irritatingly "not canon" than what he did with the character of Frodo.

A hobbit tags along
 

Apparently, a slender book about the Hobbit has become three monster movies spread out over three years sort of involving a hobbit. (Note the significant difference in meaning between the definite article "the" versus the indefinite article "a" before a noun. The former indicates one particular, specific thing or person, whereas the latter refers to any you might care to mention.)

Also, "The Hobbit trailer looks like crap" or "The Hobbit trailer looks crappy" would have sounded less illiterate as a discussion thread title.

Since many here have commented upon the obviously unfinished nature of the trailer, I think I'll wait for the finished one. Of course, I could say the same for the movies themselves, but experience has not left me sanguine about such prospects.

Saw the trailer in 3D today on the big screen (went and saw the Superman movie - it was only okay, if anyone's on the fence about seeing it), and honestly, I didn't think the CGI looked all that bad, though I'm hardly an audio/videophile so it would probably have to be pretty bad for me to complain about that. I have a much bigger problem with the content of the trailer and am really leaning against seeing the movie in theaters (definitely wouldn't, except my husband really wants to see it - although I've already annoyed him half to death with complaining about AUJ so maybe I shouldn't see it with him :rolleyes:).

Actually though, now that I think of it, other than the Legolas/Tauriel bit and the uncovered barrels there's not that much in the trailers I specifically object to... it's more just that it just looks like more of the same swollen drivel that filled the first movie.

Jeez guys, I was just being sarcastic there, sorry it came out the wrong way.

Was just trying to say that PJ is simply putting this out to draw the largest possible audience, fullstop. And yes, I agree that it is very badly done. Just hope this trailer is not indicative of the quality of the final product...

My comment was an attempt at sarcasm that obviously did not work. I agree with you that PJ has gone over the top. Not just with the CGI but also with his "creative" additions to the cast.

Why, for example, is there any need for a red-haired female ninja elf? The original story worked perfectly well and I simply do not see what additional value the Tauriel character brings to the film (other than to please a certain demographic with scenes of her shooting arrows while leaping ten feet in the air).

I don't buy the line that adding her might help a modern cinema audience "relate" better to the story. Its like making a screen version of Macbeth, and then adding a red-haired human ninja who can draw a bow while leaping in the air to help the audience "relate" better to the original story.

Dont actually disagree..one of my friinds who read the books to find out what happened before ttt came out was astonished to discover zfrodo was brave since in the film he was always running away.. However what I really meant is that given the omissions and more significantly additions since omissios were inevitable was that the Jackson films were astonishingly faithful to the narrative lsequence of the books. Apart from the prlogue you start with theparty and follow he hobbits until the breaking of the fellowship. Now this might be regarded by others as PJ's transgressions but you could start in Gondor under attack and the strange dream sent to the old and despairing steward. See the embassy of Sauron to the dwarves and the capture of gollum that unleashes the Nazgul onthe Shire. Ideally you would need permission to use UT mzterial but it wouldbe possible

I'm not really impressed with the trailer nor the first Hobbit movie, sure I went to see it with friends twice at the theater and I bought the DVD, but I've yet to watch the DVD. On the other hand I have watched all my LOTR DVD's over and over and over. What happened to Jackson ? Laziness ? I can't believe he thinks its really a super high quality offering of a film (s) . I will say that I adore the LOTR book series but I even had a hard time getting through the book The Hobbit. It is written on such a more childish level...trolls with names Tom, Bert, and Bill ? Really ? I just couldn't get into the book.
yes I will go see Hobbit pt.2 , I just feel kind of obligated since I love LOTR...but my expectations level is way down there and that is a shame.
I went with my sister to see The Hobbit and she raved about it, I think she might have called it a " masterpiece"...oy..but she is the type that if she is a fan of something no matter how they subsequently mess it up she says " oh it was great !" like to give an honest critique is being disloyal or something. She was the same way with Pirates of the Caribbean...which she is a big fan of. OK the first movie was cute and enjoyable but after that each one got stupider and stupider but she raved about how great each one was....when it was clear as hell it wasn't, I don't understand people like this.

Regarding storytelling– here’s what Jackson himself has to say:

You know, in case you were wondering.

Now, I don’t say that approach can never work, but it’s asking for trouble...

Now, that...explains a lot of things...

Ergo, the immense metallic mothership hovering in a great looming thundercloud above Erebor, waiting to beam up Gollum, who said:

"Phone home, Precious-s-s."

Hoot!

Organic processes take place in compost heaps too.

It sounds to me rather closely akin to not knowing what one is doing.

There have been some classic films made in much that fashion, actually... but all those I can think of were a very different kind of film– not something which is in all other respects a highly conventional flick. And if you are going to do things that way, you need an awful, awful lot of objectivity and self-discipline when it comes to putting the final cut together– or else be willing to step aside completely and let the editor take over.

If Jackson & Co really made LotR this way, then, well, good for them, because it’s a terribly hard thing to carry off– but I think they must have been bringing a lot less ego along with them at that stage. (Or were more afraid of Tolkien fans.)

I remember Sean Bean saying Peter Jackson was a much different director than ones he had before. The major difference being, oftentimes the script wasn't completed for the scenes they were currently filming. During the Council of Elrond, Bean and most other actors had the scripts on their laps because it had just been given to them before shooting. Even then there would be stop-and-gos during filming as Jackson would reel off more things he wanted to add.

I think (and this really is just my guess) LOTR was a large enough story to contain a director like Peter Jackson....sort of this off-the-cuff director who seriously does not like the editting process. Yet Lord of the Rings is such an expansive story it mever felt like too much.

The Hobbit is quite different, and with the director Jackson is, you can see how easy it is for the story to get completely derailed. I was reading another article that had the actors saying why there were 3 films instead of 2 (not surprisingly "money" was not one of the reasons). Anyway, one reason was to tell more of the story (or well the story Jackson wanted to portray). Because if it had been 2 films then the Riddles scene would have been 8 minutes long instead of 12. Honesty, as good as the Riddles scene was, I just happen to think every scene could have used some trimming...and in other cases a woodman's axe.

Does the title of this thread bother anyone else or am I the only one missing the 'like' before crap?

Read up a few posts. Think that I explained that. :D

And welcome to the Downs, elvet.

If i were goimg to be bothered it would have been by the somewhat uncouth word choice rather than if it constituted an acceptable adjective.... given the informality of the vocabulary.....and the fact that I would happily say it looks rubbish ...I aint bovverred.

Everything bothers me...:D

I haven't worked out the exact math, but if PJ's can take the Hobbit's few pages about barrel-riding and make an hours-long flight scene, just think what he could do with the Lay of Leithian!

The mind staggers...

And I know what I could watch on my flight to Mars.

Well we have the cavetroll precedent.
My nightmare is that when I am doddery enough to be consigned to a care home some hapless attendant discovering that I was a life long tolkien fan will sit me in front o the films on an eternal loop and I will be too far gone to protest but not enough not to mind. I may have to have a living will with an unusual clause.

And I daresay he would be lauded in some quarters for his ingenuity... I read recently a transcript of a panel featuring the filmmakers and there was apparently an audible "Aw" from the audience when Peter Jackson informed them that The Silmarillion was probably an impossibility for adaptation for reasons of copyright. I would confess myself unbelievably surprised if very many of such an alleged Tolkienite audience had even read The Silmarillion.

I'm probably only going to watch it because:

1. Gandalf
2. Legolas
3. Thranduil
4. Martin Freeman (Yes, not Bilbo, Martin Freeman)
5. Benedict Cumberbatch's VOICE!! (Seriously, that man can give Alan Rickman a run for his money.)

The only way that this movie can get any better actor-wise is if they added Tom Hiddleston.

Oh, the horror.

So I just saw this trailer (not the newer one) before an Imax showing of Gravity (which I found reasonably enjoyable, incidentally).

I'm fairly sure at some point in the trailer focus was specifically, deliberately placed on the silvery hairs in Thranduil's eyebrows.

Bard looks like he just got thrown out of an alehouse.

I feel like I know now how Maedhros felt after he was hung from his hand for who knows how long from the dreadful pinnacle of Thangorodrim, or perhaps the awful torment of Húrin, forced to watch the suffering from afar of all he held dear. If the conclusion of the entire Hobbit film trilogy isn't the emotional equivalent of an escape facilitated by having one's hand cut off by one's best friend, I shall be sorely aggrieved.

I just saw a commercial for Desolation of Smaug on TV. Based on the tawdry images and overblown dynamics of the piece, it is even worse than I had imagined. And I have a vivid imagination.