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  
•       •       •

4092 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 01 Oct 2013 at 12:49 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



105 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-01 12:55:35 PM  
Uh..no...no good shot of the dragon in these preview.

/not that that's a bad thing
 
2013-10-01 12:58:24 PM  
Neat.
 
2013-10-01 12:58:51 PM  
In death, a member of Project Mayhem has a name.

His name is Bilbo.
 
2013-10-01 01:00:52 PM  
Over it.
 
2013-10-01 01:04:10 PM  
Nice.. though those video links that don't allow for full screen are annoying.

Also, very little recycled from the last trailer.
 
2013-10-01 01:04:29 PM  
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.

My wife nearly walked out of the cinema when at the beginning it looked like The Hobbit was going to be a musical.
 
2013-10-01 01:08:46 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.

My wife nearly walked out of the cinema when at the beginning it looked like The Hobbit was going to be a musical.


What, 'That's What Bilbo Baggins Hates' is original material, and hardly something to object to.

I don't think they kept in any other songs.
 
2013-10-01 01:09:31 PM  
The ridiculous over-saturation in the Hobbit has permanently scorched my vision. I'm passing on this one.
 
2013-10-01 01:13:38 PM  
So much for the brilliant sneaky barrel escape, leaving the Elves befuddled.

Now it looks like they just brawl their way out and go on a wild adventure ride in open barrels that never tip over.

Lame.
 
2013-10-01 01:13:46 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.


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.
 
2013-10-01 01:16:43 PM  
Still cracks me up they're doing this as three movies.  Up next:  A Green Eggs and Ham decalogue.
 
2013-10-01 01:16:49 PM  
Ugh, The Hobbit is NOT Lord of the Rings. Really saddens me the direction they took with this whole thing. The first was so terrible.

I'll still see it though, honestly just for the HFR.

Also, how can a giant spider look more realistic from a 2002 movie than one from a 2013 movie??
 
2013-10-01 01:19:32 PM  
If Hollywood wants to make a Tolkein romance, there's Beren and Luthien. You don't have to make one up.

Also, over the past decade it feels like the prosthetic ears they're using for the elves keep on getting cornier. Look at those props on Evangeline Lilly.

/props
//and Martin Freeman is awesome
 
2013-10-01 01:21:13 PM  
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.
 
2013-10-01 01:21:14 PM  
Cumberbatch sounds pretty wicked and I love Martin Freeman. I'm going to see it.
 
2013-10-01 01:21:31 PM  

sure haven't: I'll still see it though, honestly just for the HFR.


You'll see it for the High Frame Rate? I saw the first one twice, first at 24 FPS and then at 48 FPS. I didn't notice any significant difference.
 
2013-10-01 01:26:05 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.

My wife nearly walked out of the cinema when at the beginning it looked like The Hobbit was going to be a musical.


"That's what Lord Dimwit hates."
 
2013-10-01 01:30:19 PM  
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.
 
2013-10-01 01:41:47 PM  

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.


That's not what people are complaining about for the most part.  That's alluded to enough in the Hobbit that most people familiar with the book will understand.  It's the romance with an elf character that Jackson made up, and the changing of a lot of other scenes, that is pissing people off.  The barrel ride turning from a clever escape into just a fight sequence?  Thranduil offering to help the dwarfs?  That's so far off from what happens in the book that it makes me wonder if Jackson ever read it to begin with.

Smaug sounds cool, but there's been a few leaks about his appearance and it doesn't match the JRR Tolkien illustrations and that disappoints me.  Freeman is good with doing a lot with shiat, but nothing can really help this stench.  I'll probably rent it, but there's no way I'm sitting in a theater for three hours for a Jackson movie ever again.
 
2013-10-01 01:45:09 PM  
farm9.staticflickr.com
 
2013-10-01 01:45:39 PM  

sure haven't: Ugh, The Hobbit is NOT Lord of the Rings. Really saddens me the direction they took with this whole thing. The first was so terrible.

I'll still see it though, honestly just for the HFR.

Also, how can a giant spider look more realistic from a 2002 movie than one from a 2013 movie??


I really enjoyed the first 20 minutes of so of the Hobbit. After that, it became a disjointed mess.  Agreed.  Two movies was ok, but three is just garbage. He has gone full George Lucas.
 
2013-10-01 01:51:24 PM  

Dalek Caan's doomed mistress: 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.

That's not what people are complaining about for the most part.  That's alluded to enough in the Hobbit that most people familiar with the book will understand.  It's the romance with an elf character that Jackson made up, and the changing of a lot of other scenes, that is pissing people off.  The barrel ride turning from a clever escape into just a fight sequence?  Thranduil offering to help the dwarfs?  That's so far off from what happens in the book that it makes me wonder if Jackson ever read it to begin with.

Smaug sounds cool, but there's been a few leaks about his appearance and it doesn't match the JRR Tolkien illustrations and that disappoints me.  Freeman is good with doing a lot with shiat, but nothing can really help this stench.  I'll probably rent it, but there's no way I'm sitting in a theater for three hours for a Jackson movie ever again.


I assume Peter Jackson is throwing in the stuff with Tauriel so he can have a token female warrior. I'm not thrilled with it but I guess it could be worse.

I'm going to hold my criticism on stuff like Thranduil offering to help the dwarfs until I see the film. It could be that it's not as it seems from the trailer, who knows.
 
2013-10-01 02:02:28 PM  

eeyore102: Dalek Caan's doomed mistress: 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.

That's not what people are complaining about for the most part.  That's alluded to enough in the Hobbit that most people familiar with the book will understand.  It's the romance with an elf character that Jackson made up, and the changing of a lot of other scenes, that is pissing people off.  The barrel ride turning from a clever escape into just a fight sequence?  Thranduil offering to help the dwarfs?  That's so far off from what happens in the book that it makes me wonder if Jackson ever read it to begin with.

Smaug sounds cool, but there's been a few leaks about his appearance and it doesn't match the JRR Tolkien illustrations and that disappoints me.  Freeman is good with doing a lot with shiat, but nothing can really help this stench.  I'll probably rent it, but there's no way I'm sitting in a theater for three hours for a Jackson movie ever again.

I assume Peter Jackson is throwing in the stuff with Tauriel so he can have a token female warrior. I'm not thrilled with it but I guess it could be worse.

I'm going to hold my criticism on stuff like Thranduil offering to help the dwarfs until I see the film. It could be that it's not as it seems from the trailer, who knows.


I just hope Thrandruil sounds like McBain.
 
2013-10-01 02:03:08 PM  

Alphax: 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.

My wife nearly walked out of the cinema when at the beginning it looked like The Hobbit was going to be a musical.

What, 'That's What Bilbo Baggins Hates' is original material, and hardly something to object to.

I don't think they kept in any other songs.


This song was pretty obviously pandering to a modern audience.
 
2013-10-01 02:06:29 PM  
Enjoyed the first one, looking forward to this one.
 
2013-10-01 02:09:12 PM  

Fano: I just hope Thrandruil sounds like McBain.


I hope he sounds like McGarnagle's boss.

"Well, Thorin, Galiondil is dead! They slit his throat from ear to ear!"

"Hey, I'm tryin' to eat lunch here!"
 
2013-10-01 02:10:50 PM  
Dear Hollywood, keep the quality fantasy films coming...


/ps...although you can do other authors/worlds too.
 
2013-10-01 02:12:46 PM  

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.


So, putting in the material that was mentioned in the book but never written by Tolkien is okay, and cutting out the entire final chapter of Return of the King is also okay? The only chapter that has any symbolism in the series whatsoever as the Scouring of the Shire was Tolkien's lament for the loss of the green and pleasant England of his youth to the forces of industrialization?

I'm just saying that the Lord of the Rings movies got less and less about Tolkien's books in the second and third films and more and more about Legolas being a nimble bastard and Peter Jackson saying 'Hey! Look what we can do with computers!'
 
2013-10-01 02:13:37 PM  

Alphax: 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.

My wife nearly walked out of the cinema when at the beginning it looked like The Hobbit was going to be a musical.

What, 'That's What Bilbo Baggins Hates' is original material, and hardly something to object to.

I don't think they kept in any other songs.


The Dwarves sang the Lonely Mountain song, but I think that's it.
 
2013-10-01 02:14:14 PM  

rogue49: Dear Hollywood, keep the quality fantasy films coming...


/ps...although you can do other authors/worlds too.


THEY HAVE!
 
2013-10-01 02:14:25 PM  

sprawl15: Alphax: 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.

My wife nearly walked out of the cinema when at the beginning it looked like The Hobbit was going to be a musical.

What, 'That's What Bilbo Baggins Hates' is original material, and hardly something to object to.

I don't think they kept in any other songs.

This song was pretty obviously pandering to a modern audience.


Ohhhh.. man.   I'm not sure if that's hilarious or painful.. guess it's some of each.
 
2013-10-01 02:15:11 PM  

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


Don't forget that classic tale, Aldarion and Erendis: The Mariner's Wife!

/ugh...so...awful.
 
2013-10-01 02:16:07 PM  
I'm seeing this solely to hear Cumberbatch's voice!
 
2013-10-01 02:21:50 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Alphax: 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.

My wife nearly walked out of the cinema when at the beginning it looked like The Hobbit was going to be a musical.

What, 'That's What Bilbo Baggins Hates' is original material, and hardly something to object to.

I don't think they kept in any other songs.

The Dwarves sang the Lonely Mountain song, but I think that's it.


down down to goblin town and 15 birds?
 
2013-10-01 02:23:43 PM  
I don't know about you, but I'm holding out for the Extended Versions of the Hobbit movies.
 
2013-10-01 02:23:58 PM  

eeyore102: Dalek Caan's doomed mistress: 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.

That's not what people are complaining about for the most part.  That's alluded to enough in the Hobbit that most people familiar with the book will understand.  It's the romance with an elf character that Jackson made up, and the changing of a lot of other scenes, that is pissing people off.  The barrel ride turning from a clever escape into just a fight sequence?  Thranduil offering to help the dwarfs?  That's so far off from what happens in the book that it makes me wonder if Jackson ever read it to begin with.

Smaug sounds cool, but there's been a few leaks about his appearance and it doesn't match the JRR Tolkien illustrations and that disappoints me.  Freeman is good with doing a lot with shiat, but nothing can really help this stench.  I'll probably rent it, but there's no way I'm sitting in a theater for three hours for a Jackson movie ever again.

I assume Peter Jackson is throwing in the stuff with Tauriel so he can have a token female warrior. I'm not thrilled with it but I guess it could be worse.

I'm going to hold my criticism on stuff like Thranduil offering to help the dwarfs until I see the film. It could be that it's not as it seems from the trailer, who knows.


Tauriel & Legolas romance reminds me so much of a fan fiction I wrote at 13, it's slightly creepy.

Red-headed, badass Elf warrior princess who falls in love with the handsome Legolas, the only difference was her name, Elenwen, or star maiden. It's like Peter Jackson peered into my lonely, dorky 13-year old heart.

Thankfully this was pre-internet and never made it onto the web, I threw that notebook out years ago.

/I had a crush on Legolas before the movies biatches
//Even my childish fan fiction mary-sue character was better than Twilight
 
2013-10-01 02:25:15 PM  

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?
 
2013-10-01 02:26:21 PM  

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.
 
2013-10-01 02:26:38 PM  

RoyFokker'sGhost: 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.

So, putting in the material that was mentioned in the book but never written by Tolkien is okay, and cutting out the entire final chapter of Return of the King is also okay? The only chapter that has any symbolism in the series whatsoever as the Scouring of the Shire was Tolkien's lament for the loss of the green and pleasant England of his youth to the forces of industrialization?

I'm just saying that the Lord of the Rings movies got less and less about Tolkien's books in the second and third films and more and more about Legolas being a nimble bastard and Peter Jackson saying 'Hey! Look what we can do with computers!'


Please do not put words in my mouth. I did not say that cutting out "The Scouring of the Shire" was ok, nor will you hear me say that. I am rather responding to the people who think there isn't enough material in "The Hobbit" to justify more than one movie.
 
2013-10-01 02:29:46 PM  

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.
 
2013-10-01 02:33:53 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.


Or the accidental incest.
 
2013-10-01 02:36:59 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.


But the events of "The Hobbit" do not take place in a vacuum, as it were. They take place in the context of the larger story of The One Ring. If you treat this series of films as a prequel to LotR, then it helps to explain the events that took place even if they were merely alluded to in the book.

I love Tolkien's works and believe he was an inspired author, but there are a couple of things he did that are a bit odd. He made the choice to tell "The Hobbit" from Bilbo's point of view, which is good, but in making that choice, we ended up with Gandalf having to explain very tersely something that was a major development in the history of Middle Earth. It's ok in a book, but in a movie, people prefer to be shown things, not have them told to them.
 
2013-10-01 02:40:31 PM  

eeyore102: RoyFokker'sGhost: 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.

So, putting in the material that was mentioned in the book but never written by Tolkien is okay, and cutting out the entire final chapter of Return of the King is also okay? The only chapter that has any symbolism in the series whatsoever as the Scouring of the Shire was Tolkien's lament for the loss of the green and pleasant England of his youth to the forces of industrialization?

I'm just saying that the Lord of the Rings movies got less and less about Tolkien's books in the second and third films and more and more about Legolas being a nimble bastard and Peter Jackson saying 'Hey! Look what we can do with computers!'

Please do not put words in my mouth. I did not say that cutting out "The Scouring of the Shire" was ok, nor will you hear me say that. I am rather responding to the people who think there isn't enough material in "The Hobbit" to justify more than one movie.


Also, the studios don't really care whether something is right or not. They only care about "can we use this to make money" which in the case of the appendices was 'yes' because it gave them the chance to expand The Hobbit into a LotR prequel trilogy instead of being a stand alone story. Also, movie studios don't often care about being true to the source material if they can make something more "entertaining" from a movie making perspective.

We Tolkien fans may want something closer to the source material, but the studios don't abide by the just the hardcore lore nerds. They're trying to make a movie that caters to the largest audience, and sadly this means Mr. Fancy Pants surfing down stairs and oliphant tusks...
 
2013-10-01 02:44:01 PM  

Night Night Cream Puff: eeyore102: RoyFokker'sGhost: 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.

So, putting in the material that was mentioned in the book but never written by Tolkien is okay, and cutting out the entire final chapter of Return of the King is also okay? The only chapter that has any symbolism in the series whatsoever as the Scouring of the Shire was Tolkien's lament for the loss of the green and pleasant England of his youth to the forces of industrialization?

I'm just saying that the Lord of the Rings movies got less and less about Tolkien's books in the second and third films and more and more about Legolas being a nimble bastard and Peter Jackson saying 'Hey! Look what we can do with computers!'

Please do not put words in my mouth. I did not say that cutting out "The Scouring of the Shire" was ok, nor will you hear me say that. I am rather responding to the people who think there isn't enough material in "The Hobbit" to justify more than one movie.

Also, the studios don't really care whether something is right or not. They only care about "can we use this to make money" which in the case of the appendices was 'yes' because it gave them the chance to expand The Hobbit into a LotR prequel trilogy instead of being a stand alone story. Also, movie studios don't often care about being true to the source material if they can make something more "entertaining" from a movie making perspective.

We Tolkien fans may want something closer to the source material, but the studios don't abide by the just the hardcore ...


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.
 
2013-10-01 02:48:26 PM  

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.
 
2013-10-01 02:49:27 PM  

Fano: UrukHaiGuyz: Alphax: 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.

My wife nearly walked out of the cinema when at the beginning it looked like The Hobbit was going to be a musical.

What, 'That's What Bilbo Baggins Hates' is original material, and hardly something to object to.

I don't think they kept in any other songs.

The Dwarves sang the Lonely Mountain song, but I think that's it.

down down to goblin town and 15 birds?


Oh yeah, right you are. Need to re-watch, it's been a while.
 
2013-10-01 02:50:55 PM  

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.


No love for killer Frodo when he puts sting to Gollum's throat in Two Towers? Anyway, his struggle was always meant to be more internal.
 
2013-10-01 02:57:59 PM  

eeyore102: 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.

But the events of "The Hobbit" do not take place in a vacuum, as it were. They take place in the context of the larger story of The One Ring. If you treat this series of films as a prequel to LotR, then it helps to explain the events that took place even if they were merely alluded to in the book.

I love Tolkien's works and believe he was an inspired author, but there are a couple of things he did that are a bit odd. He made the choice to tell "The Hobbit" from Bilbo's point of view, which is good, but in making that choice, we ended up with Gandalf having to explain very tersely something that was a major development in the history of Middle Earth. It's ok in a book, but in a movie, people prefer to be shown things, not have them told to them.


Actually I would argue that they can be.  You seem to enjoy Tolkien's novels, so I don't need to tell you that the Hobbit was written down before LOTR was a glimmer in his eyes.  And that as he wrote LOTR he amended and changed the Hobbit in successive printings to better accommodate the plot of LOTR.

The retcons Tolkien made are not important.  They are not why people like the Hobbit.  The minutiae of details that link the books together are also not important to the Hobbit.  What is important to the Hobbit is themes, the character growth, and the sense of wonder and adventure in that world.  That is what enraptured and entertained people.  Not the middling details that link it to the LOTR.

I'm not so dour as to be against showing Legolas in Mirkwood as an callback to the other movies mind you.  I'm just against this idea that ephemera are of the utmost importance.  That sticking the plot into a greater framework of a universe comes first and the actual movie second.  Its aspie comic book thinking bleeding over into classic fantasy novels.

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.
 
2013-10-01 03:06:41 PM  

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.
 
2013-10-01 03:09:25 PM  

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.
 
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.
 
2013-10-02 10:45:02 AM  

Clash City Farker: 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.


The Tolkien estate isn't happy with the movie studios so that's not likely to happen any time soon if ever.
 
2013-10-02 10:57:40 AM  

swaxhog: The Hobbit looked like a first year college class project.


I agree 100%. Just awful. And the trailers for Hobbit 2 don't look any better, actually a bit worse. Especially with the high frame rate showing, it'll look beyond terrible.

How is it we went from Jurassic Park, to X-Men, to LOTR... and now we've had a decade of sh*tty ass decline? I thought CG would be indistinguishable from real life by now.
 
2013-10-02 03:50:31 PM  

ZeroCorpse: 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.



Aha, you are correct, sir. Duly noted.
 
2013-10-02 03:52:25 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: 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.



Ok, little man, whatever you say.
 
2013-10-02 08:10:34 PM  
 
Displayed 105 of 105 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report