Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

'The Hobbit: An unexpected journey' trailer released

This is truly a work of art, Peter has surpassed himself, I for one can hardly wait for the release date. :)
 
Can't wait to see this. I wonder how closely they will follow The Hobbit book. They changed a lot for Lord of the Rings.


Now let's hope for the "The Silmarillion" broken into a few movies and a movie for each volume of "The History of Middle Earth". Each a three to four hour epic. Especially the wars between Morgoth and the Noldor.:cool:
 
I too am pumped about this! I've been following all the updates on Peter Jacksons facebook page.

Andy Sirkus is such an amazing Golum too.

Oh, and Kate Blanchette looks gorgeous as ever too!
 
Ah...how lucky it would be to go into a coma for a year and come out of it a few days before this is released. You wouldn't have to deal with the excruciating wait! Close your eyes, everything goes balck...and when you open them again....ooh midnight showing of the Hobbit tomorrow night! :D ;)

thi swill be the THE movie of 2012!
 
Antares said:
Ah...how lucky it would be to go into a coma for a year and come out of it a few days before this is released. You wouldn't have to deal with the excruciating wait! Close your eyes, everything goes balck...and when you open them again....ooh midnight showing of the Hobbit tomorrow night! :D ;)

thi swill be the THE movie of 2012!
Click to expand...

You may have to make that two coma's as the movie is broken up into two parts...
 
Archman! said:
You may have to make that two coma's as the movie is broken up into two parts...
Click to expand...

Yes, I just noticed that, and I'm not really sure that 'The Hobbit' (not itself, a long book, by any means) really needs two films/movies to tell its tale, unlike TLOTR. However, I have to say that the trailer looked really impressive. Thanks for posting it.
 
Might have to go back and re-read the story and with the little free time I have of late that might take me to next year.

Now lets hope they don't F it up with all sorts of 3D crap effects.
 
I have to wait a whole year? Noooo!!!! that's too long for me to wait especially since I just finished reading a graphic novel version in a few days.

I just downloaded the old animated movie. I think I will wait till summer to watch that.
 
Scepticalscribe said:
Yes, I just noticed that, and I'm not really sure that 'The Hobbit' (not itself, a long book, by any means) really needs two films/movies to tell its tale, unlike TLOTR. However, I have to say that the trailer looked really impressive. Thanks for posting it.
Click to expand...

Frankly Lord of the Rings should have been broken up into six movies for the six books. Rather than three movies for the three volumes.

Jackson practically skipped the entire first book in "The Fellowship of the Ring". Such as the seventeen years that passed while Frodo had the ring and still lived in the Shire. You got no feel for this in the movie it seemed like it was a couple days. Everything involving Tom Bombadil was cut out. End Farmer Maggot was a brief antagonist in the movie while he was a friend that aided Frodo and the others in the book.

Of course everything regarding Saruman taking over the Shire and the Hobbits defeating him and his remaining forces was cut from "The Return of the King".
 
looks boring. this is like male geek's version of twilight. big opening then a massive drop the next week. i don't see this movie appealing to a general audience.
 
d4rkc4sm said:
looks boring. this is like male geek's version of twilight. big opening then a massive drop the next week. i don't see this movie appealing to a general audience.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Look how many people adore Lord of the Rings, geeks and non-geeks.

I've never even read Lord of the Rings but adored the movies.
 
velocityg4 said:
Frankly Lord of the Rings should have been broken up into six movies for the six books. Rather than three movies for the three volumes.

Jackson practically skipped the entire first book in "The Fellowship of the Ring". Such as the seventeen years that passed while Frodo had the ring and still lived in the Shire. You got no feel for this in the movie it seemed like it was a couple days. Everything involving Tom Bombadil was cut out. End Farmer Maggot was a brief antagonist in the movie while he was a friend that aided Frodo and the others in the book.

Of course everything regarding Saruman taking over the Shire and the Hobbits defeating him and his remaining forces was cut from "The Return of the King".
Click to expand...

I have not read the books so I can not comment on what was left out. But, I will say that books and movies are very different entities. If the director must make a film, there’s no way to include everything, especially when it comes from a long book.
 
I still think the company of dwarfs look like a Scandanavian novelty/prog heavy-metal group. :D

But I'm sure it will be a good interpretation, as the Lord of the Rings trilogy was.
 
velocityg4 said:
Frankly Lord of the Rings should have been broken up into six movies for the six books. Rather than three movies for the three volumes.

Jackson practically skipped the entire first book in "The Fellowship of the Ring". Such as the seventeen years that passed while Frodo had the ring and still lived in the Shire. You got no feel for this in the movie it seemed like it was a couple days. Everything involving Tom Bombadil was cut out. End Farmer Maggot was a brief antagonist in the movie while he was a friend that aided Frodo and the others in the book.

Of course everything regarding Saruman taking over the Shire and the Hobbits defeating him and his remaining forces was cut from "The Return of the King".
Click to expand...

I have to say that I actually liked TLOTR movie adaptations and thought they were surprisingly good and well worth watching; most of the time, I absolutely hate it when books I have liked or loved have been transposed to the Big Screen (the Small Screen, with British TV, tends to be a good bit better where faithfulness to an original text in concerned).

In general, though, my heart sinks when I learn that a movie adaptation of a well-loved text is contemplated; usually, this means obscenely good-looking actors, along with a total disregard of context, plot, nuance, narrative, actual text, and spirit of the work, (and often, even worse, an altered - i.e. more 'upbeat' ending, too) in order to fashion a banal, clichéd, trite, offering which hopes to cash in on the success of the original.

The movie adaptations of TLOTR didn't do that; sure, they took short cuts, but was broadly faithful in tone and content to the original, and the whole thing was beautifully filmed, as well.

In any case, I've always liked The Hobbit - and it will be interesting to see what is made of it by PJ.
 
I read all of Tolkien before it was cool.

Then years later Hollywood went ahead and made a ****-sandwich out of the books.

Their movies were never as good as the ones in my head.
 
Movies are rarely, if ever, as good as the book
That said, LOTR and Harry Potter both do as good a job adapting to the big screen as I have seen

I think The Hobbit will follow that tradition
 
velocityg4 said:
Everything involving Tom Bombadil was cut out. End Farmer Maggot was a brief antagonist in the movie while he was a friend that aided Frodo and the others in the book.

Of course everything regarding Saruman taking over the Shire and the Hobbits defeating him and his remaining forces was cut from "The Return of the King".
Click to expand...

Leaving out Tom Bombadil was a good thing. I never could stand that character. I do wish they had put in the scouring of the Shire, though.

Lord Blackadder said:
I still think the company of dwarfs look like a Scandanavian novelty/prog heavy-metal group. :D

But I'm sure it will be a good interpretation, as the Lord of the Rings trilogy was.
Click to expand...

"Company of Dwarves". Good band name!

MacDawg said:
Movies are rarely, if ever, as good as the book
That said, LOTR and Harry Potter both do as good a job adapting to the big screen as I have seen

I think The Hobbit will follow that tradition
Click to expand...

I have just learned to treat the books and movies as completely separate entities. I usually enjoy things much more that way. Some are too blatant to ignore, though, such as "I, Robot", where the filmmakers saw the book and said "Nice title", then threw the book away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back