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 21
    More: Cool, The Hobbit, Smaug, previews, dragons  
•       •       •

4083 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 01 Oct 2013 at 12:49 PM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-10-01 01:30:19 PM
2 votes:
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 01:21:13 PM
2 votes:
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 01:16:49 PM
2 votes:
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 01:04:29 PM
2 votes:
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 10:25:40 PM
1 votes:

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 09:25:09 PM
1 votes:

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 04:57:10 PM
1 votes:

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 04:52:16 PM
1 votes:

Beer cap: Three LOTR movies was plenty.


So don't see it. Ta-da!
2013-10-01 04:50:10 PM
1 votes:
Love this trailer and can't wait to see it.

/haters gonna hate
//looks awesome
2013-10-01 04:39:06 PM
1 votes:
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 03:31:04 PM
1 votes:

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 03:18:13 PM
1 votes:
You know what would be neat?  If someone were to make a Hobbit movie based on the book.
2013-10-01 03:06:41 PM
1 votes:

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 02:57:59 PM
1 votes:

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 02:36:59 PM
1 votes:

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 02:33:53 PM
1 votes:

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 02:16:07 PM
1 votes:
I'm seeing this solely to hear Cumberbatch's voice!
2013-10-01 02:12:46 PM
1 votes:

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 02:06:29 PM
1 votes:
Enjoyed the first one, looking forward to this one.
2013-10-01 01:21:14 PM
1 votes:
Cumberbatch sounds pretty wicked and I love Martin Freeman. I'm going to see it.
2013-10-01 01:16:43 PM
1 votes:
Still cracks me up they're doing this as three movies.  Up next:  A Green Eggs and Ham decalogue.
 
Displayed 21 of 21 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report