If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Uproxx)   The second trailer for The Hobbit: The Desolation Of Smaug brings the heat, specifically a fire-breathing dragon   (uproxx.com) divider line 105
    More: Cool, The Hobbit, Smaug, previews, dragons  
•       •       •

4089 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 01 Oct 2013 at 12:49 PM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



105 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-01 03:13:32 PM

Seth'n'Spectrum: Stile4aly: Seth'n'Spectrum: If Hollywood wants to make a Tolkein romance, there's Beren and Luthien. You don't have to make one up.

No love for Turin Turambar and Nienor Niniel?

I don't think the Twi-hards are going to come out for such a sad tale.


That romance will never get made into a movie, too taboo.
 
2013-10-01 03:14:08 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: Esc7: Unless the main joy you derive is from seeing a bunch of details fit together and having an internally consistent timeline by all means enjoy all the necromancers and dol guldurs you want.

I think it is unnecessary and muddles the main story of the Hobbit. It makes it a worse movie. I'm certain it will be exciting and badass to see Gandalf kicking butt.

I disagree with the idea that the Dol Gulder/White Council subplot detracts from the Hobbit story. I think it lends urgency, and gives more options for traditional cliffhanger edits when there are multiple story threads, making the movie version work better than a strict adaptation.


This.

Doesn't anyone recall the Council of Elrond, when Gandalf tells the attendees they should be glad at least Smaug was dead, because otherwise Sauron could use him to terrible effect? The Necromancer might have been treated as a minor detail in "The Hobbit", but he is a huge deal and I agree that expanding on this subplot lends urgency to the overall arc of the story.
 
2013-10-01 03:16:03 PM

eeyore102: Skyrmion: eeyore102: Yeah that bit was pretty dumb. Legolas is a decent enough fighter in the books, but that was way over the top. I was also kind of sad they made Frodo kind of wimpy in the movies -- in the books, he could be fierce in a pinch, proving that Hobbits could do the unexpected.

Frodo? He was pretty passive in the book. He got stabbed, grabbed, and bitten a lot, but that was about it.

Not at all.

On Weathertop he stabbed at one of the Nazgul, but only got its robe.

He actually rode to the Ford of Bruinen on his own and tried to defy the Nazgul who commanded him to surrender.

He stabbed a cave troll in the foot with Sting.


He ruined some guy's clothes, rode a horse, almost didn't do what some guy told him to do, and poked a thing in the foot.

What a badass. Truly an example of Superfly TNT.

\I kid
 
2013-10-01 03:18:13 PM
You know what would be neat?  If someone were to make a Hobbit movie based on the book.
 
2013-10-01 03:23:14 PM
First one was great, moved fairly quickly, lots of action, looking forward to the second. My problem with the LOTR flicks was all the painful whining hobbit scenes: "Oh Master Frodo, I love you so much.....blah farking blah blah." I wanted to kill myself. The battle scenes were monumentally badass and most of the acting was phenomenal, but way too much time was spent on hobbits balling their eyes out. Thankfully the Hobbit films seem to be free of that melodrama.
 
2013-10-01 03:26:05 PM

ColSanders: You know what would be neat?  If someone were to make a Hobbit movie based on the book.



It would never get made, except by some arthouse studio with unlimited capital but didn't care how much it made.
 
2013-10-01 03:31:04 PM

Esc7: eeyore102: Thing is, there was a lot of stuff that happened during the timeline of "The Hobbit" that didn't really make it into the book...largely involving Gandalf. Big stuff, like convening the White Council and assaulting the Necromancer (a.k.a. Sauron) in his fortress at Dol Guldur. IMO this is *not* extra and unnecessary stuff if you are framing this story in the larger "Lord of the Rings" context. Putting this material into the movies will help it fit in with the events that take place fifty years later.

Why is that necessary?

Really, why do we need to see all those things?  Does it make it a better story?

The Hobbit, if you'll remember, had none of that stuff because the book wasn't written to care about that stuff.  The story focused on Bilbo's journey, not on some greater narrative that competes for attention and ultimately is unresolved.

Just because we can jam in a bunch of extraneous stuff doesn't mean we should.  And the argument that "it happened" during the Hobbit so we have to show it is ridiculous.  These are books, not a real universe.  JRR Tolkien decided most of this extra stuff well after the Hobbit was written, this stuff isn't vital to the narrative.


Yeah, yeah, but your scientists writers were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should
 
2013-10-01 03:35:16 PM

ColSanders: You know what would be neat?   If someone were to make a Hobbit movie based on the book.


 A reality show with Gollum and Honey Boo Boo.
 
2013-10-01 03:55:54 PM

doctor wu: but way too much time was spent on hobbits balling their eyes out. Thankfully the Hobbit films seem to be free of that melodrama.


Giggity.
 
2013-10-01 03:58:19 PM
Why can't film makers make a film out of a book using the story exactly as it is in the book?  Why must they put their stamp on it?
 
2013-10-01 04:02:09 PM

doctor wu: First one was great, moved fairly quickly, lots of action, looking forward to the second. My problem with the LOTR flicks was all the painful whining hobbit scenes: "Oh Master Frodo, I love you so much.....blah farking blah blah." I wanted to kill myself. The battle scenes were monumentally badass and most of the acting was phenomenal, but way too much time was spent on hobbits balling their eyes out. Thankfully the Hobbit films seem to be free of that melodrama.


Alright people, great specimen here. This is what happens when call of duty bros watch Lord of the Rings.
 
2013-10-01 04:13:24 PM

shaumah: Esc7: eeyore102: Thing is, there was a lot of stuff that happened during the timeline of "The Hobbit" that didn't really make it into the book...largely involving Gandalf. Big stuff, like convening the White Council and assaulting the Necromancer (a.k.a. Sauron) in his fortress at Dol Guldur. IMO this is *not* extra and unnecessary stuff if you are framing this story in the larger "Lord of the Rings" context. Putting this material into the movies will help it fit in with the events that take place fifty years later.

Why is that necessary?

Really, why do we need to see all those things?  Does it make it a better story?

The Hobbit, if you'll remember, had none of that stuff because the book wasn't written to care about that stuff.  The story focused on Bilbo's journey, not on some greater narrative that competes for attention and ultimately is unresolved.

Just because we can jam in a bunch of extraneous stuff doesn't mean we should.  And the argument that "it happened" during the Hobbit so we have to show it is ridiculous.  These are books, not a real universe.  JRR Tolkien decided most of this extra stuff well after the Hobbit was written, this stuff isn't vital to the narrative.

Yeah, yeah, but your scientists writers were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should


Of course they should have! Think of all the Necromancer toys that wouldn't have been made! They patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now they're selling it, they wanna sell it.

/actually like the subplots
 
2013-10-01 04:22:18 PM

doctor wu: ColSanders: You know what would be neat?  If someone were to make a Hobbit movie based on the book.


It would never get made, except by some arthouse studio with unlimited capital but didn't care how much it made.


Its been done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl7w2Z0vGpA
 
2013-10-01 04:39:06 PM
Of course the real reason I'm looking forward to the scenes with the Necromancer is because it's Benedict Cumberbatch. So I'm looking forward to twice the Cumberbatch in the next two movies.

/and in Sherlock
//if they ever air Series 3
 
2013-10-01 04:50:10 PM
Love this trailer and can't wait to see it.

/haters gonna hate
//looks awesome
 
2013-10-01 04:52:16 PM

Beer cap: Three LOTR movies was plenty.


So don't see it. Ta-da!
 
2013-10-01 04:57:10 PM

stupiddream: Why can't film makers make a film out of a book using the story exactly as it is in the book?  Why must they put their stamp on it?


Because the book was awful?
 
2013-10-01 05:13:53 PM

stupiddream: Why can't film makers make a film out of a book using the story exactly as it is in the book?  Why must they put their stamp on it?


Because what makes a book good doesn't always translate well to the screen.  Jackson et al. actually explain some of their changes in LOTR pretty well, even if I don't agree with them.  They're really farking up The Hobbit though.  Jackson loves excess, and whatever kept that relatively in check for LOTR seems to be gone.
 
2013-10-01 05:16:17 PM

eeyore102: Of course the real reason I'm looking forward to the scenes with the Necromancer is because it's Benedict Cumberbatch. So I'm looking forward to twice the Cumberbatch in the next two movies.

/and in Sherlock
//if they ever air Series 3


Between Sherlock and Doctor Who, and Gatiss taking a role in Game of Thrones, those men have to be crazy busy. I'd just as soon they took their time and made sure the quality didn't suffer.
 
2013-10-01 05:17:29 PM

stupiddream: Why can't film makers make a film out of a book using the story exactly as it is in the book?



Isn't Twilight straight from the book?
 
2013-10-01 06:09:55 PM
static.comicvine.com
=
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-10-01 06:40:13 PM

stupiddream: Why can't film makers make a film out of a book using the story exactly as it is in the book?  Why must they put their stamp on it?


I want to tell you about the most accurate book-to-film transfer I've ever seen.  It was F. Paul Wilson's 'The Keep,' which starts off as a screamingly awesome concept about Nazis versus vampires during WWII.  The problem with the book is that it's not actually Nazis versus vampires (christ knows why; because that alone right there is terrific), but brings in some really terrible fantasy elements including an immortal hero to face the immortal enemy.  Wilson gets about a dozen books out of this shiat or more, by the way, over the course of both Repairman Jack and The Adversary cycle.  Some folks like them.  That's cool; I thought they were a shiat martini over hobo piss ice.

They kept every important weird ass plot turn I can remember from the book.  I shiat you not, I actually watched the movie last year in deep hopes that this was going to be one of the rare times a Hollywood mauling would improve the source.

They kept the long, overwrought sex scene between the immortal hero and the nubile young waif girl.  The immortal hero was Scott Glenn.  Yeah.  The guy that looks like a melting drainpan that was painted with the same lines they used on Lance Henriksen's face.

I watched SCOTT GLENN have 'romantic' sex for what felt like half an hour and he still looked like a hound dog in a summer drought.

Hollywood can do whatever the fark they want to a book.  I've seen the apocalypse, and it looked like Scott Glenn's bare ass.
 
2013-10-01 06:42:50 PM

Lord Dimwit: The best thing Jackson did with LOTR was removing all the damn singing and slow, mostly irrelevant side-plots.

The worst thing Jackson did with The Hobbit was keeping the damn singing and adding in irrelevant side-plots that weren't even there in the book just to get it padded out to a trilogy.


To be fair LoTR had it's own relatively irrelevant side plot.

cdn-media.hollywood.com
 
2013-10-01 07:10:42 PM

fusillade762: To be fair LoTR had it's own relatively irrelevant side plot.


Which is also an answer to the people saying, "Why not do 'Beren and Luthien?'".

Tolkien pretty much pillaged that unpublished story of his to create the elf / human romance of Aragorn and Arwen. So really, it's like we've already seen it.
 
2013-10-01 07:24:48 PM

Skyrmion: fusillade762: To be fair LoTR had it's own relatively irrelevant side plot.

Which is also an answer to the people saying, "Why not do 'Beren and Luthien?'".

Tolkien pretty much pillaged that unpublished story of his to create the elf / human romance of Aragorn and Arwen. So really, it's like we've already seen it.


Also, the movie studios don't have the rights to that story.
Until Christopher Tolkien dies, they're not getting it either.
 
2013-10-01 08:19:25 PM

Skyrmion: fusillade762: To be fair LoTR had it's own relatively irrelevant side plot.

Which is also an answer to the people saying, "Why not do 'Beren and Luthien?'".

Tolkien pretty much pillaged that unpublished story of his to create the elf / human romance of Aragorn and Arwen. So really, it's like we've already seen it.


That story happens three times and is a recurring theme among middle earth nobility. I'm pretty sure it was intentional.
 
2013-10-01 08:25:16 PM

Erix: Jackson loves excess, and whatever kept that relatively in check for LOTR seems to be gone.


The thing with LOTR is that they're such big stories that he had to actually cut stuff out to get a cinematic time. And even with the extended editions, there's a lot cut out.

And to some extent, LOTR lends itself to a grand scale. It's about giant armies fighting each other, multiple story strands, huge numbers of characters. The problem is that a lot of the other Peter Jackson films aren't like that, but he can't help letting himself go, and since LOTR, no-one is going to call him out.

Take King Kong. His version, telling pretty much the same story as the 1933 film, is over 80 minutes longer. And the 1933 version is considered a stone-cold classic. If that version could tell the story so effectively that it's considered a classic, what are your 80 minutes adding?
 
2013-10-01 08:26:28 PM
I've loved the book for 25 years, and I enjoyed the movies so far. The geek in me is ecstatic that additional material is being included to flesh out the storyline. I also really don't have a problem with Jackson exercising a little creative license. Movies and books are two entirely different mediums and what works in one doesn't always work in the other.

Haters gonna hate.
 
2013-10-01 08:29:31 PM

Rev. Skarekroe: Also, the movie studios don't have the rights to that story.
Until Christopher Tolkien dies, they're not getting it either.


Well to be fair, he's 88.
 
2013-10-01 08:48:58 PM

farkeruk: Erix: Jackson loves excess, and whatever kept that relatively in check for LOTR seems to be gone.

The thing with LOTR is that they're such big stories that he had to actually cut stuff out to get a cinematic time. And even with the extended editions, there's a lot cut out.

And to some extent, LOTR lends itself to a grand scale. It's about giant armies fighting each other, multiple story strands, huge numbers of characters. The problem is that a lot of the other Peter Jackson films aren't like that, but he can't help letting himself go, and since LOTR, no-one is going to call him out.

Take King Kong. His version, telling pretty much the same story as the 1933 film, is over 80 minutes longer. And the 1933 version is considered a stone-cold classic. If that version could tell the story so effectively that it's considered a classic, what are your 80 minutes adding?


You're totally right, but that's not actually what I was getting at.  I was referring to the absurd Rube Goldberg-like action shots he keeps shoving everywhere, where the camera follows some character as they bumble/breeze (depending on if they're a dwarf or elf) their way through a chaotic battle.  That was some of the worst parts of the LOTR, and in The Hobbit it seems to have increased exponentially.
 
2013-10-01 09:12:07 PM
Meh. For all its faults, it was better than having to read the book again.

Great story; shiat writing.
 
2013-10-01 09:25:09 PM

eeyore102: Of course the real reason I'm looking forward to the scenes with the Necromancer is because it's Benedict Cumberbatch. So I'm looking forward to twice the Cumberbatch in the next two movies.

/and in Sherlock
//if they ever air Series 3


IMDB
 
2013-10-01 09:26:34 PM
I, for one, look forward to the Tumblr pics of Benedict Cumberbatch as a Fire-Otter!
 
2013-10-01 09:39:01 PM

stupiddream: Why can't film makers make a film out of a book using the story exactly as it is in the book?  Why must they put their stamp on it?


that's crazy talk

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-10-01 09:44:28 PM
The Hobbit: Episode 1 kinda sucked. It looked like they were trying to cram as much really bad CGI onto the screen as possible.

Maybe episode 2 will be better.
 
2013-10-01 09:56:34 PM

doctor wu: First one was great, moved fairly quickly, lots of action, looking forward to the second.  My problem with the LOTR flicks was all the painful whining hobbit scenes: "Oh Master Frodo, I love you so much.....blah farking blah blah." I wanted to kill myself. The battle scenes were monumentally badass and most of the acting was phenomenal, but way too much time was spent on hobbits balling their eyes out. Thankfully the Hobbit films seem to be free of that melodrama.


THIS.

As someone who likes the Silmarillion, the Lord of the Rings, and even the Unfinished Tales (esp. the Second Age stuff), I completely agree with you.

/ where's my "Fall ofNúmenor" epic movie? I'd rather watch that!
 
2013-10-01 10:21:40 PM
Why doesn't Peter Jackson ruin something else for a change. Maybe he could do a Matlock movie?
 
2013-10-01 10:25:40 PM

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: They could make it into five three hour movies, with them just wandering around Middle Earth for an hour or so in each one, and I'd be happy.


I'm with you. I could watch hobbits and dwarves walk around the forest singing and eating for hours.
 
2013-10-01 10:29:29 PM

doctor wu: First one was great, moved fairly quickly, lots of action, looking forward to the second. My problem with the LOTR flicks was all the painful whining hobbit scenes: "Oh Master Frodo, I love you so much.....blah farking blah blah." I wanted to kill myself. The battle scenes were monumentally badass and most of the acting was phenomenal, but way too much time was spent on hobbits balling their eyes out. Thankfully the Hobbit films seem to be free of that melodrama.


Just a note for your future writing attempts:

Bawling is crying.

Balling  is either slang for playing basketball, or slang for intercourse.

By using the latter word, you have painted a truly disturbing picture.
 
2013-10-01 11:07:27 PM

TommyDeuce: stupiddream: Why can't film makers make a film out of a book using the story exactly as it is in the book?  Why must they put their stamp on it?

that's crazy talk

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x306]


eeeeeeeeeeeee *faints dead away*
 
2013-10-01 11:30:22 PM

doctor wu: First one was great, moved fairly quickly, lots of action, looking forward to the second. My problem with the LOTR flicks was all the painful whining hobbit scenes: "Oh Master Frodo, I love you so much.....blah farking blah blah." I wanted to kill myself. The battle scenes were monumentally badass and most of the acting was phenomenal, but way too much time was spent on hobbits balling their eyes out.


Go watch a Michael Bay movie and shut up.
 
2013-10-01 11:54:57 PM

Moonfisher: I've loved the book for 25 years, and I enjoyed the movies so far. The geek in me is ecstatic that additional material is being included to flesh out the storyline. I also really don't have a problem with Jackson exercising a little creative license. Movies and books are two entirely different mediums and what works in one doesn't always work in the other.

Haters gonna hate.


I agree, I've read the books many times and still am at the point of "shut up and take my money". Jackson would have to try pretty damn hard to ruin these for me.
 
2013-10-02 12:05:44 AM

Skyrmion: fusillade762: To be fair LoTR had it's own relatively irrelevant side plot.

Which is also an answer to the people saying, "Why not do 'Beren and Luthien?'".

Tolkien pretty much pillaged that unpublished story of his to create the elf / human romance of Aragorn and Arwen. So really, it's like we've already seen it.


Unpublished?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tale_of_Beren_and_L%C3%BAthien
 
2013-10-02 02:16:30 AM

Nilatir: I, for one, look forward to the Tumblr pics of Benedict Cumberbatch as a Fire-Otter!


Google "smauglock"

/Warning, there may be some dragon/hobbit smut
//An anthropomorphic dragon, but still...
 
2013-10-02 02:28:16 AM

Flappyhead: Lord Dimwit: The best thing Jackson did with LOTR was removing all the damn singing and slow, mostly irrelevant side-plots.

The worst thing Jackson did with The Hobbit was keeping the damn singing and adding in irrelevant side-plots that weren't even there in the book just to get it padded out to a trilogy.

THIS.  I had no problem with two movies, but once it became three you just knew a bunch of extra and completely unnecessary crap was going to get shoveled in.  We don't need an hour of "Sauron is coming" or reassuring all the ladies that Legolas isn't gay.


Some time after the third is released, a few fanedits will be made that cut the trilogy to about 1/2 or 2/5 and get rid of the extraneous BS and possibly even do things like put lids on the barrels.
 
2013-10-02 02:37:04 AM
We'll have to see how the final movie turns out..  but is Bilbo really going to talk with Smaug without wearing his Ring?  Smaug would have obliterated him instantly if he could see him.
 
2013-10-02 04:30:36 AM
I though dragons had  AFF_DETECT_INVIS naturally?
 
2013-10-02 07:10:48 AM
Did they spend any of the hundreds of millions on special effects this time or is it all still going into PJ's pockets. The Hobbit looked like a first year college class project. Digital effects studios are the new outsource-to-lowest-bidder and it showed quite clearly in The Hobbit.
 
2013-10-02 10:07:56 AM

95BV5: Skyrmion: fusillade762: To be fair LoTR had it's own relatively irrelevant side plot.

Which is also an answer to the people saying, "Why not do 'Beren and Luthien?'".

Tolkien pretty much pillaged that unpublished story of his to create the elf / human romance of Aragorn and Arwen. So really, it's like we've already seen it.

Unpublished?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tale_of_Beren_and_L%C3%BAthien


J.R.R. Tolkien never published the story himself, that was the doing of his son Christopher. The real answer to "why not Beren and Luthien" is "the studio doesn't have the rights."
 
2013-10-02 10:31:01 AM

Night Night Cream Puff: 95BV5: Skyrmion: fusillade762: To be fair LoTR had it's own relatively irrelevant side plot.

Which is also an answer to the people saying, "Why not do 'Beren and Luthien?'".

Tolkien pretty much pillaged that unpublished story of his to create the elf / human romance of Aragorn and Arwen. So really, it's like we've already seen it.

Unpublished?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tale_of_Beren_and_L%C3%BAthien

J.R.R. Tolkien never published the story himself, that was the doing of his son Christopher. The real answer to "why not Beren and Luthien" is "the studio doesn't have the rights."


Jackson might buy the rights one day with all his billions. It would make many more billions because the story includes vampires and werewolves.
 
Displayed 50 of 105 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report