Hobbit Trailer looks crap

[Arphen Silverhair]

I think the thread title should not be so outright negative.
I really don't get the overwhelming hate you guys are reacting with here.
At least try to see the positives...

BTW have you seen this?
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151697149436171

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Arphen Silverhair

I think the thread title should not be so outright negative.
I really don't get the overwhelming hate you guys are reacting with here.
At least try to see the positives...

Actually... I am really not the “hater” type, Arphen and in fact I have been known to argue myself against people whom I think are being unreasonably negative. I tend to see “hatedom” as basically the other side of blind fandom, and just as annoying.
So, in a way I can sympathise with what you’re saying–

–Except well, in this particular case I honestly just can’t see that much to be positive about. Sorry, but it really does look pretty bad.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Arphen Silverhair

I think the thread title should not be so outright negative.
I really don't get the overwhelming hate you guys are reacting with here.
At least try to see the positives...

Those of us who dislike the films have to have someplace to go. You certainly aren't going to get any kind of balanced discussion on TORN either.

[Arphen Silverhair]

Well I don't know what trailer you are seeing, but to me most of it looks great. The CGI is good, it's just not touched up yet.
They still have 6 months to go!
Do you really think the design for example laketown or Thranduils Halls is bad?
If it's one thing the movies really deliver.. it's the visuals.
Perhaps one exception: Azog, but that was because he was added too late.
Just think of a Smaug at Gollum-level CGI-wise.
Also, the actors still are awesome: Lee Pace just nails absolutely every line he got.

One can of course argue about the OTT Action sequences and deviations from the book, those really are unnecessary and bad as in AUJ. But there are still things to look forward to.
And also you must remember those parts with the elves won't be the whole movie. We still just have a glimpse of Beorn, the Spiders, Laketown etc.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Arphen Silverhair

Well I don't know what trailer you are seeing, but to me most of it looks great. The CGI is good, it's just not touched up yet.
They still have 6 months to go!
Do you really think the design for example laketown or Thranduils Halls is bad?
If it's one thing the movies really deliver.. it's the visuals.
Perhaps one exception: Azog, but that was because he was added too late.
Just think of a Smaug at Gollum-level CGI-wise.
Also, the actors still are awesome: Lee Pace just nails absolutely every line he got.

One can of course argue about the OTT Action sequences and deviations from the book, those really are unnecessary and bad as in AUJ. But there are still things to look forward to.
And also you must remember those parts with the elves won't be the whole movie. We still just have a glimpse of Beorn, the Spiders, Laketown etc.

Sure, the set design is pretty good and the acting– the very little you see of it– doesn’t look too bad (though I’d call it “workmanlike” rather than ”awesome”). So, if you want people to mention the positives– fine, there they are.

But for the rest– well, come on, look at your own comments: “the CGI is good, it’s just not touched up yet. They still have six months to go!” “[the action scenes] are unnecessary and bad” “those parts with the elves won’t be the whole movie”. So... um... it’s a great trailer except for almost everything that appears in it?

[Mithalwen]

Touch of irony no in being so judgmemtal of Barrow Downers on such a short acquaintanceship? Why not see the positives? On the whole we are an intelligent. witty bunch who reaaly know and loveTolkien. Some (not me ) really know about film. Some even like the films to a greater or lesser degree. Now I know there are Pollyanna Pangloss types ~ some I encounter on a unrelated board~ who refuse on principal to dislike things and when accused of lacking discrimination then say they like some things more. Now that ma be a therapists approved choice of language but semantically it is afine line between using liking more and less and saying like and dislike.

So you have a bunch of opinionated people but the opinions are not mindless.. If you want an unquestioning PJ lovefest you may be in the wrong place. But it is a motherlode if you have more than a superficial interest in Middle Earth. Here you will find those who have lectured and publishd on Tolkien. Again not me yet but I have loved Tolkien's worlld for a very long time now and I mind when it is demeaned.

Positives? How about that they haven't decided that making Eorn a transvestite rather than a skin changer would make him/her more relevant to modern audiences? I am thinking Grayson Perry clutching Alan Measles here....

[Arphen Silverhair]

@ Mithalwen
I think I have any right to say what my opinion about given movie/trailer is, no matter how short I am member here. And also why I think the broad majority of the people here tend to overlook that Peter Jackson is not the devil himself.
I said clearly that I dislike about the same things that most dislike about the new Trailer and about AUJ.
But I'm not hating on principle everything PJ and his Team have come up with.
Or use sarcastic statements every time they comment on the movies like you did in your post, instead of for example give your view of things I thought were quite good.
(no matter how you see it, just use a different tone)

@ Nerwen
I meant the part with fighting, sliding elves. I think Tauriel is a character who is okay.

[alatar]

Interestingly, PJ has taken a boring barrel ride and made it into a flight/chase/fight scene, because surely that's what this trilogy has been lacking. Explains why the barrel lids needed to be left in Thanduil's wine cellar.

[elvet]

Awesome trailer. I think Peter Jackson does a good job with the movies.

[Mithalwen]

[QUOTE=Arphen Silverhair;684142]@" Mithalwen
I think I have any right to say what my opinion about given movie/trailer is, no matter how short I am member here. And also why I think the broad majority of the people here tend to overlook that Peter Jackson is not the devil himself.
I said clearly that I dislike about the same things that most dislike about the new Trailer and about AUJ.
But I'm not hating on principle everything PJ and his Team have come up with.
Or use sarcastic statements every time they comment on the movies like you did in your post, instead of for example give your view of things I thought were quite good.
(no matter how you see it, just use a different tone)"

I wasn't being sarcastic. You do have the right to post your opinions on the films. I was merely pointing out what seemed to be double standards. We have to see the best in the films but you have the right to see the worst in us on your first visit. And equally the original poster is entitled to his choice of words which while uncouth has passed the censor. Give others the rights you claim for yourself and don't dictate to them how they should post.

[Alcidas]

Originally Posted by Arphen Silverhair

@ Mithalwen
I think I have any right to say what my opinion about given movie/trailer is, no matter how short I am member here.

Of course you have every right to state your opinion about the trailer in here. Similarly, those posters who wish to state their opinion that the trailer is a load of crap also have every right to do so.

What you are being criticised for is not your opinion that the trailer is good, but your presuming to lecture other posters about their opinions.

Surely you can see this very simple point?

[Arphen Silverhair]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Positives? How about that they haven't decided that making Eorn a transvestite rather than a skin changer would make him/her more relevant to modern audiences? I am thinking Grayson Perry clutching Alan Measles here....

So this is not sarcasm?

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Arphen Silverhair

So this is not sarcasm?

It was meant to be joke......hence stupid smiley but having seen the trailer with it's extremely minimal connection to Tolkien I feel rather bleak.

[Nogrod]

I think one thing that concerns many people around here is that people had expectations with the LotR -movie, that it would be something great - not just one more blockbuster action movie with some comic relief added. In retrospect it is easy to see that you just should have guessed it: there is no high art coming from Hollywood, even if the screenwriters use a masterpiece as a basis (of deviation) for their storyboard.

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.

Which doesn't mean it can't be quite an eye-candy.

I'm taking the optimist's route then. It maybe Hollywood doesn't know any more how to tell a story or to build interesting and deep characters (or they are not interested in those things any more) but they sure know how to make things look breath-takingly good and epic.

Kind of a larger image of our world today: we may have nothing inside, but darn we look good!

[alatar]

Hobbit trailer looks crap.

Is the thread title missing a word or some letters, or does it contain some textspeak slang that the youngin's use, with the meaning:

• Computer rendered and processed
• Completely reimagined, all PJ
• Cash raking after production

?

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Arphen Silverhair

I said clearly that I dislike about the same things that most dislike about the new Trailer and about AUJ.
But I'm not hating on principle everything PJ and his Team have come up with.

Might some of us not be criticising this trailer for perfectly legitimate reasons? I mean, Arphen, it seems you largely agree about what’s wrong with it– it’s just that you think we should ignore that and focus on what’s positive. Okay, in a way that’s a pretty good attitude– but the thing is, when most of what’s shown in a trailer is CGI-heavy action scenes, then the quality of both CGI and action becomes rather relevant. Plus, what there is of dialogue sounds awfully trite to me. So– what’s left? I just don’t think “scenery” is enough to swing it. (“Acting” is a moot point– it’s a good cast, but we’re not actually seeing much of what they’re capable of here.)

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Which doesn't mean it can't be quite an eye-candy.

I'm taking the optimist's route then. It maybe Hollywood doesn't know any more how to tell a story or to build interesting and deep characters (or they are not interested in those things any more) but they sure know how to make things look breath-takingly good and epic.

They do... but that doesn’t mean they always succeed... I mean, honestly, this doesn’t even look good– in fact, that’s largely what we’ve been talking about.

Besides, I think you’re making a lot of sweeping generalisations here. Hollywood is what it always was– i.e. mainly about profit, but quality films can and do get made. And believe me, I can appreciate a decent blockbuster/popcorn film, and enjoy it for what it is rather than what it isn't. That doesn’t mean one has to be completely uncritical all the time.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Arphen Silverhair

But I'm not hating on principle everything PJ and his Team have come up with.

This might go a bit off topic, but I personally don't hate the movie on principle. I just dislike it on principle. Not even that. I don't really care about it, but I love to complain about every little detail they get wrong. You should try it, it's fun.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Arphen Silverhair

I think the thread title should not be so outright negative.
I really don't get the overwhelming hate you guys are reacting with here.
At least try to see the positives...

BTW have you seen this?
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151697149436171

Mostly this thread is about a little humour. If you knew us, you would be able to recognise the jokes. But that's the problem with internet communication. It's also very difficult for people well versed in Tolkien's books to take a Hollywood adventure/action/gaming flick in any way as a legitimate interpretation of Tolkien. We've learnt, as Agan says, from four previous ones.

One of the things we Downers pride ourselves on, besides our knowledge of Tolkien's books, is the way we conduct discussion here. We tend to avoid simple statements of opinion and favour explanation and argument to support our positions. Sometimes we even manage to persuade each other! Or exhaust each other.

So, given that we tend to listen to each other's reasons, I want to ask you what you mean by linking to that You Tube video. What do you think it proves in terms of your argument? That others are deeply impressed? That we should follow suit also?

Simply linking to that video does little to further your point that we are full of hate. We aint'. But let my give you one possible interpretation of that video to show how it needs a bit of explanation.

It shows some fangirls giggling and excited over the trailer. And it shows three actors' response to the you tube video.

Are the fans giving any kind of argument or debate? No, they are simply going gaga over the scenes they are seeing. They seem to be thoroughly excited by what they are viewing.

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?

I for one could never be one of those fangirls, so the entire video does not address me as a fan of Tolkien.

Really, I'm left with the comments, if not here then from one of our recent threads, which presented two of Jackson's writing team's defense of their work: "It's in the appendices!" "It represents the spirit of Tolkien."

Those two statements beg for critical analysis, and neither one of them can bear the scrutiny for long. Critical analysis is not hate. It is the response to the films from people who know the books well.

So, tell me, why did you link to that video? Do you have another "reading" of it that would enlighten us and make us regret our initial responses to the trailer?

[mark12_30]

"We find the gold...
"We take the gold...
"And we run like there's no Manana!"

"And that's your plan?!?"

"Mm hmm."

".....well, I like it."

Well, I do like it. The trailer, I mean. Lots of reasons not to, but I'd rather be happy about it than curmudgeonize the evening away. I'm even glad to see Leggybopper back, and his redheaded sidekick isn't so bad.

Actually, she's a badass Merisuwiniel.

I think it's time I start planning my opening night costume.

[mark12_30]

Hmmm, Aiwendil, I'm not sure I disagree with you. So I shan' t think about that too hard before I sleep, perchance to dream. He's a good bowbender, anyway.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

I'd rather be happy about it than curmudgeonize the evening away.

Killjoy.

I'm even glad to see Leggybopper back, and his redheaded sidekick isn't so bad.

Actually, she's a badass Merisuwiniel.

Yes, but Merisuwyniel was intended as parody.

Still, I don't doubt the unintentional humor quotient will be high.

[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.

[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. ..

[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.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

"

".....well, I like it."

Well, I do like it. The trailer, I mean. Lots of reasons not to, but I'd rather be happy about it than curmudgeonize the evening away. I'm even glad to see Leggybopper back, and his redheaded sidekick isn't so bad.

Actually, she's a badass Merisuwiniel.

I think it's time I start planning my opening night costume.

Oh dear. Helen, I remember a certain balrog's eyeliner that got your fancy.

[quote=Kuru]
Still, I don't doubt the unintentional humor quotient will be high. [quote]

There has to be some recompense for seeing it.

[Arphen Silverhair]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Mostly this thread is about a little humour. If you knew us, you would be able to recognise the jokes. But that's the problem with internet communication. It's also very difficult for people well versed in Tolkien's books to take a Hollywood adventure/action/gaming flick in any way as a legitimate interpretation of Tolkien. We've learnt, as Agan says, from four previous ones.

One of the things we Downers pride ourselves on, besides our knowledge of Tolkien's books, is the way we conduct discussion here. We tend to avoid simple statements of opinion and favour explanation and argument to support our positions. Sometimes we even manage to persuade each other! Or exhaust each other.

So, given that we tend to listen to each other's reasons, I want to ask you what you mean by linking to that You Tube video. What do you think it proves in terms of your argument? That others are deeply impressed? That we should follow suit also?

Simply linking to that video does little to further your point that we are full of hate. We aint'. But let my give you one possible interpretation of that video to show how it needs a bit of explanation.

It shows some fangirls giggling and excited over the trailer. And it shows three actors' response to the you tube video.

Are the fans giving any kind of argument or debate? No, they are simply going gaga over the scenes they are seeing. They seem to be thoroughly excited by what they are viewing.

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?

I for one could never be one of those fangirls, so the entire video does not address me as a fan of Tolkien.

Really, I'm left with the comments, if not here then from one of our recent threads, which presented two of Jackson's writing team's defense of their work: "It's in the appendices!" "It represents the spirit of Tolkien."

Those two statements beg for critical analysis, and neither one of them can bear the scrutiny for long. Critical analysis is not hate. It is the response to the films from people who know the books well.

So, tell me, why did you link to that video? Do you have another "reading" of it that would enlighten us and make us regret our initial responses to the trailer?

Me linking that Video had nothing to do with my or your opinion about the Trailer. I just thought that it was somehow sweet to see these three elves watching those hilarious, giggling girls, because I've never seen that kind of "official" video response.
Although it certainly is some form of marketing.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Arphen Silverhair

it was somehow sweet to see these three elves watching those hilarious, giggling girls, because I've never seen that kind of "official" video response.
Although it certainly is some form of marketing.

They have just been fast copying the format from the Game of Thrones who (or whose fans - I think we don't khow how far HBO-organized the initial video was) published videos of fan-reactions to the "Red wedding" - anyway then George Martin appeared on Conan's TV-show and watched the fan reactions.

Pretty much the same idea...

[Alcidas]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

They have just been fast copying the format from the Game of Thrones who (or whose fans - I think we don't khow how far HBO-organized the initial video was) published videos of fan-reactions to the "Red wedding" - anyway then George Martin appeared on Conan's TV-show and watched the fan reactions.

Pretty much the same idea...

Hmm. So its a staged video of Orlando Bloom and his co-stars, all dressed as elves, watching a staged video of a couple of fangals giggling while they watch some footage?

I suppose you can say that it is 'somehow sweet'. Like having seven spoons of sugar in your tea.

[Mithalwen]

Maybe merely demonstrating a ' mise en abyme" (literal translation not really helpful but a cultural version of the laughing cow cheesebox). Given that some advertisements are made to seem like youtube amateur efforts now it may not be surprising that this has been latched on to. My sister went to the opening ceremony of the Olympic games last year and a few weeks before she got an email from Danny Boyle saying that he would have wished his father to be at the games and inviting attendees to email picture of someone who they wouldmhave liked to have been there. So my late father was one of those shown in the memorial section. And that was touching. But Boyle wasn't selling something in the same way.

[Alcidas]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

...merely demonstrating a ' mise en abyme"...

Yes, I do agree that it is pretty abysmal...

[mark12_30]

Bethberry, I'm deeply touched that you remember my fascination with Roggie' s flameproof eyeliner. But I would never have noticed it but for the guidance of Lush the Cold and Fair. I will be curious to see whether whether Smaug and Roggie share makeup artists.

As a child I entertained myself by the hour singing: Puff a dwagon wiv by a sea an frolic inna Au'um miss.

There, Tauriel, beat that. Action smaction, let's all just sit in a toasty semicircle around the dragon's nose and sing Peter, Paul and Mary songs. No?

Never mind. Too bad they won't let me bring my Mirkwood bow into the theater.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

Bethberry, I'm deeply touched that you remember my fascination with Roggie' s flameproof eyeliner. But I would never have noticed it but for the guidance of Lush the Cold and Fair. I will be curious to see whether whether Smaug and Roggie share makeup artists.

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.