Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I have read the book.

The movie is apparently going to cover Gandalf's encounter with the Necromancer.

It explains why Aragorn & Legolas are in the movie, or starts to anyway.

The Hobbit is going to be an amazing film.
Just hope it doesn't get too much hate from people who think its gone too far away from the book or something like that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Medium of Death wrote:I have read the book.

The movie is apparently going to cover Gandalf's encounter with the Necromancer.

It explains why Aragorn & Legolas are in the movie, or starts to anyway.

Aragorn is as well? I knew Legolas was, I thought he would just be thrown in with the Elves, although i'm not 100% sure he belong with the Elves in the Hobbit anyway....
But they defiantly need to add something thats not in the book, because its shorter than any of the 3 LOTR books isn't it? Yet its being split in two.

Legolas is the Elf King of Mirkwood's son, so he's in The Hobbit although he isn't named in the book.

I'm going to be 100% honest, I've never fallen in love with the Lord of the Rings. I know it's big and awesome, but I've never geeked out about it that much honestly.

Having said that, this might get me out of my Man-Cave.

Medium of Death wrote:It explains why Aragorn & Legolas are in the movie, or starts to anyway.

Legolas yes. Aragorn no. Viggo Mortensen stated fairly recently that he is not involved.

rodgers37 wrote:But they defiantly need to add something thats not in the book, because its shorter than any of the 3 LOTR books isn't it? Yet its being split in two.

I was bemused by the decision to do two films as well, but then I sat down and read the book properly. Narratively, it wouldn't work as a single film particularly if you want to keep everything in it. There are just too many "events", some of which can easily be expanded upon to fill the running time. For the first film, I suspect the Goblin skirmish will be the mid point set piece with the Mirkwood spider fight forming the climatic battle. The film will come to a close as the Elves capture the Dwarves and Bilbo is left locked outside.

I keep watching it is like a girl giving me a hug over and over again.

Monster Rain wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:But they sure do it for me. I love the songs, so this sent my metaphorical nerd chubby straight from six to twelve.

I liked the chanting and all, and maybe it's just nostalgia, but I think I like the animated version of the song better.

Which doesn't diminish the happiness caused by this trailer at all.

You'll get no argument from me about how awesome the version from the animated film is. This one comes off a bit less like Thorin's company are all professional singers, though.

Manchu wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I know that the songs don't do it for a lot of people in the general audience. My wife wasn't psyched by it.

But they sure do it for me. I love the songs, so this sent my metaphorical nerd chubby straight from six to twelve.

I love the songs, too, but I'm not sure they do well with the same aesthetic as LotR. Tolkien wrote the books very differently. I hope that, and so far cannot judge whether, Jackson takes this into account with his movies.

I have no doubt that he will. He kept the songs in the LotR movies pretty low-key and unobtrusive. The tonal change in the Dwarves' song seems pretty clear evidence that he's taking the same tack and avoiding it being a musical. Much as I would laugh to see the elves in Rivendell singing the song mocking the dwarves from the book, I rather doubt that one will make it in.

Only 358 more sleeps untill part 1 is released!!! *insert giddy skaven-like nerd squeeking here*

My pants just shrunk a lil' bit.

Samus_aran115 wrote:My pants just shrunk a lil' bit.

Dr. Banner?!

OT:
Can't wait either. Been stoked since i saw the stills!

I gotta say, I was fairly interested in this film, but after that trailer I am really excited.

Flashman wrote:I was bemused by the decision to do two films as well, but then I sat down and read the book properly. Narratively, it wouldn't work as a single film particularly if you want to keep everything in it. There are just too many "events", some of which can easily be expanded upon to fill the running time. For the first film, I suspect the Goblin skirmish will be the mid point set piece with the Mirkwood spider fight forming the climatic battle. The film will come to a close as the Elves capture the Dwarves and Bilbo is left locked outside.

Yeah, book length is entirely different to film length. Most of the stuff that pads out the LotR was left out of the films, because it was world building stuff, descriptions of locations, references to historical events and so on, while other parts that were covered fairly briefly took up lots more space in the films (the battle for Helm's Deep was maybe 3 pages in books, but was maybe 20 minutes on screen).

The Hobbit is more of a straight up adventure yarn, and doesn't have that much world building stuff. I haven't read the Hobbit in a long time, but I can't think of anything that wouldn't translate direct to the screen.

I mean, it certainly could be a regular length movie, but if they want to include everything, and include Gandalf heading off to fight the Necromancer, then I can see how it'd end up two films.

There will be a lot of obvious foreshadowing to make the two films join up. For instance in the trailer you see the broken remains of Narsil, and although in the book you do not get any detail about the 'Necromancer' (LOTR not having been written) I imagine this will be a bit more explicit.

I ruined my underwear. :(

can't wait, can't wait, can't wait, can't wait, can't wait, can't wait, can't wait, can't wait, can't wait, can't wait, can't wait, can't wait, can't wait, can't wait, can't wait, can't wait, can't wait, can't wait

*I'm a little bit over excited by this film*

The smile on my face is huge right now, I can't believe it's coming around to that time again!! WOOOOOOOOO!

The thing will be to avoid watching both films back to back.

Flashman wrote:

rodgers37 wrote:But they defiantly need to add something thats not in the book, because its shorter than any of the 3 LOTR books isn't it? Yet its being split in two.

I was bemused by the decision to do two films as well, but then I sat down and read the book properly. Narratively, it wouldn't work as a single film particularly if you want to keep everything in it. There are just too many "events", some of which can easily be expanded upon to fill the running time. For the first film, I suspect the Goblin skirmish will be the mid point set piece with the Mirkwood spider fight forming the climatic battle. The film will come to a close as the Elves capture the Dwarves and Bilbo is left locked outside.

I suppose your right there actually.

So. The whole dragon on a pile of treasure will be in the second movie? Good. I always imagined that being a fantastic scene, and I'd hate if they crammed it into a little portion

I doubt the silmarillion will get a movie. It's too vague. I had real trouble reading that book. Although I was only ten when I picked it up. Maybe I should give it another chance.

Samus_aran115 wrote:I doubt the silmarillion will get a movie. It's too vague. I had real trouble reading that book. Although I was only ten when I picked it up. Maybe I should give it another chance.

Its really an overall narrative anyway...a cosmology of the making and development of the LOTR universe and its "story of creation"

I personally would much rather see a "Children of Hurin" movie...one of the better pre LOTR stories in all honesty

Looks solid...with the exception of Thorrin being a young guy...that kinda throws me off a bit.

Seems to be a lot of shots of Gandalf adventuring by himself, presumably going after the necromancer.
And the music is AWESOME. The music made the LOTR films, looks like they'll do the same this time.

Joey wrote:Seems to be a lot of shots of Gandalf adventuring by himself

Gandalf the Grey is sort of like a wizard scout, forever roaming the Middle Earth to seek information about what's afoot

Mannahnin wrote:This one comes off a bit less like Thorin's company are all professional singers, though.

This is an excellent point.

"And now, Thorin and Company will treat us to a medley of Dwarven folk songs. Remember, we here at NHPR are supported by listener contribution..."

Flashman wrote:

Joey wrote:Seems to be a lot of shots of Gandalf adventuring by himself

Gandalf the Grey is sort of like a wizard scout, forever roaming the Middle Earth to seek information about what's afoot

I also imagine it has to do with what footage they felt was ready to use in a trailer considering they still have almost a year of post-production and probably reshoots.

Edit: Oh, and Gandalf was a popular character so you want to showcase him. There are a lot of people who only know of the series through the movies.

Really excellent trailer, can't wait.

Alhough this was one I was likely to go to the cinema for. Both my eldest boys will be old enough to attend by that point, and I have to admit, I always prefred the Hobbit to the actual Lotr trilogy.

I hope they don't release a trailer a week for several weeks, like the Aliens film.

I looking forward to this!

Looks awesome!

My only issue would be the non-solid feel of the dwarves. You can't change the look so much when you had 9-10 film hours (non-extended) of Gimli who looks way, way thicker and more dwarvish.

Hulksmash wrote:Looks awesome!

My only issue would be the non-solid feel of the dwarves. You can't change the look so much when you had 9-10 film hours (non-extended) of Gimli who looks way, way thicker and more dwarvish.

I think the dwarves look fine, I was skeptical at first when I saw the images of them but now that I see them moving in live action they look great.

As Ive said before, SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!