Hobbit Trailer looks crap

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Alcidas

I don't think Orlando Bloom is a good actor. There, I said it.

Well, neither do I, actually, but that didn’t seem the place to mention that.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Why would Jackson choose this particular video to highlight in the marketing of the second Hobbit movie? Is it a way to forestall criticism? It is a way to demonstrate who he believes his audience is? Is it a way to titilate fangirls by showing them a reaction in the actors they admire?

Why show three actors reacting to the video--and in particular, these three actors? They are all in costume, so it is not likely an unrehearsed or unscripted response, but very likely part of the publicity that the actors must engage in as part of their employment in the film. Is it a way for Jackson to suggest a Middle-earth response? Is it too cynical to regard this as a mere merchandising ploy, using fans to further the marketing strategy?

Well, if we feel like being really charitable we might suppose that Jackson was for some reason so touched by the decision of the girls to film themselves giggling over the trailer that he shot the response as a purely friendly gesture, with no ulterior motive whatever– but you wouldn’t think he’d have the leisure for that kind of thing right now. And it’s a characteristic of modern marketing to make a lot of use of “spontaneous fan reactions” (whether real or not is largely irrelevant).

So... if we assume there’s a point to this, then what is it? It really seems like the basic messages are, “here’s some people getting excited, so you should too”, plus, “look, even YOU, the ordinary fan, can be a part of this!"

Note the responses on the page:

Watching people that are watching people.... this could go on and on, and on, and on, and on,..... well you get the point. Now those girls need to post another video of themselves watching the cast watching them watching the trailer.

i want to see a reaction video to them watching the cast reaction video of their trailer reaction video!...

.........those fans will be in heaven on earth after seeing the actors watching their responses to them in the trailer!

etc, etc.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Well, if we feel like being really charitable we might suppose that Jackson was for some reason so touched by the decision of the girls to film themselves giggling over the trailer that he shot the response as a purely friendly gesture, with no ulterior motive whatever– but you wouldn’t think he’d have the leisure for that kind of thing right now.

Well, he did make a video with him, John Howe, and Alan Lee for the Tolkien Society's Return of the Ring con last summer, meant to welcome us to the event.

[Tidesson]

Well, this is what happens when you opt to put a long book story into major feature films. In my opinion, it may have been better if PJ opted to make The Hobbit - even LOTR - into a miniseries. Or perhaps in George R.R. Martin's "Game of Thrones" format on HBO.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Tidesson

In my opinion, it may have been better if PJ opted to make The Hobbit - even LOTR - into a miniseries. Or perhaps in George R.R. Martin's "Game of Thrones" format on HBO.

I couldn't agree more.

Just thinking about it: the LotR in six seasons (one season per book) where one season would be ten times one hour episodes!

And well, a decent director would have been needed as well...

Or to go into a full phantasy mode then: let's see the stories of Silmarillion as series - with six seasons one would get... oh, only in my dreams...

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Tidesson

Well, this is what happens when you opt to put a long book story into major feature films. In my opinion, it may have been better if PJ opted to make The Hobbit - even LOTR - into a miniseries. Or perhaps in George R.R. Martin's "Game of Thrones" format on HBO.

Forgive me as I might be getting old and my memory may be faulty, but wasn't The Hobbit a short little book that could have nicely been done in one movie? No need for a miniseries of it.

Originally Posted by Noggie

They probably even know it - but consider those people a marginal matter compared to their views of the more desired audiences.
. . . .
If you just check what kind of films are the blockbusters and bring in the most revenue... Now there sure are exceptions to that, but they are insecure aka. they can't be predicted. So when you are basically just making money (instead of art) you take the more safer road and rely on action and advertising.

See, the real problem is that those "desired audiences" just have way too much disposable income compared to the rest of us.

[Mithalwen]

There are other demographics with cash. The grey pound can be very strong and there have been some very successful films in the past couple of years that have benefitted. Even with the stellar cast I doubt Marigold Hotel cost many Hobbit minutes. Of course though they dont attract the peripheral merchandising tat.

The Hobbit is not a long book and i oo not know to laugh or cry when film apogists iwho defended the omissions of tne Rings (with some justification~ it is the additions I minded more) claim that the Hobbit needed expanded. Yes it isa episodic but it was designed to be. have always thought it would work best as the sort of Sunday teatime classic serial that the BBC used to do when I was a child. Now they seem to think children dont have the attention span to follow a story over several weeks. However it is still how I would wish it done..couple of chapters per shortish episode each ending on a mini cliffhanger.

[Mithalwen]

The thing about CGI for me is that it has little magic because I have seen the making of type programs. Might appreciate the cleverness but not astounded. Now when I saw the LOTR musical and Bilbo disappeared without any blaze of light or plume of smoke..well l might as well have been a bemused Breeland peasant. I hearn an interview with the effects designer and he didn't squeak.

[Pervinca Took]

I put the LOTR musical on a par with the BBC dramatisation (possibly even higher). For slightly different reasons, perhaps, but both magical and breathtaking pieces of art.

[Aiwendil]

Originally Posted by Tidesson

Well, this is what happens when you opt to put a long book story into major feature films. In my opinion, it may have been better if PJ opted to make The Hobbit - even LOTR - into a miniseries. Or perhaps in George R.R. Martin's "Game of Thrones" format on HBO.

I'm with Bethberry here. The last thing we need is to give Jackson more time to fill with pointless action and new characters. The Hobbit is a short book; I'd say that the optimal length for a cinematic adaptation of it would be something like three hours. The Lord of the Rings could work better as a miniseries, though not a long one.

For The Silmarillion, on the other hand, a miniseries probably would be the optimal form of adaptation. It would be a fairly unconventional one, though - I imagine several blocks of 6-8 episodes, each telling a single story with largely its own set of characters (Flight of the Noldor, Beren & Luthien, Turin, etc.), with a few standalone episodes for things like the story of Eol and Aredhel. Perhaps a few of those standalone episodes could even be in the style of a historical documentary (e.g. The Great March, The Coming of Men into the West).

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I know many people differ on how they see the LotR-trilogy here. But many of even those who kind of liked the LotR by PJ are now facing a new situation when the Hobbit seems to be nothing more than yet one more "Avengers" or "Spider Man" or "Star Trek": an exploitation of older popular material built to maximise the income of the studios by following the lowest common denominators of their marketing department's imagined teen-age audiences.

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. ..

[Alcidas]

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

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?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Alcidas

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.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Alcidas

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 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.

[Pervinca Took]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

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.

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.

[Michael Murry]

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.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Pervinca Took

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.

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

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Alcidas

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?

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.

[LordPhillock]

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

[Kuruharan]

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.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Alcidas

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 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.

[Alcidas]

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

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.

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.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Alcidas

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?

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

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.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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

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.

[Alcidas]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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

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...

[MCRmyGirl4eva]

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.