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.

 generalgrog wrote:
Watched the trailer again, and am left with a few questions

4) What was that little dwarf guy that was leaping on Gandalf?

Looked like he was in the necromancers' tower, so I'm guessing it was a ghoul or similar fell beastie.

Well Aura is much happier by the shot of elf blood into this one, shes gone from bemoaning the fact I'll be dragging her along to watch two hours of more Dwarves trudging across the landscape, to actually wanting to go and see it now.

It looks pretty good to me as well.

 sebster wrote:
I liked Radagast in the first movie...

And that was your first mistake.

Radagast wasn't that bad. I personally thought he was pretty important, to help viewers understand that evil has crept into Mirkwood(set up for part2). I wish he wasn't written in as comic relief though. I would have preferred a more heroic portrayal, instead of "crazy forest dweller". No where near as bad as Jar Jar though.

Jar Jar almost singlehandedly ruined episide I. (there was so much other stuff wrong, he couldn't have singlehandedly done it)

GG

 generalgrog wrote:
Radagast wasn't that bad. I personally thought he was pretty important, to help viewers understand that evil has crept into Mirkwood(set up for part2). I wish he wasn't written in as comic relief though. I would have preferred a more heroic portrayal, instead of "crazy forest dweller". No where near as bad as Jar Jar though.

Jar Jar almost singlehandedly ruined episide I. (there was so much other stuff wrong, he couldn't have singlehandedly done it)

GG

Radagast in LOTR is a cool dude. A fellow wizard. Radagast in the movie was bad VERY BAD comic relief. Seriously. He ate poop and had a sleigh (in a forest which means its a just a fixture and not transport) pulled by...rabbits.
And yea, he annoyed me as much as jar jar. Even more so because I didn't care about jar jar (other than hoping he would have a death that would later be in the list of TOP TEN MOST HORRIFIC DEATHS ON FILM).

The Hobbit should be more lighthearted. But you're putting in Sauron and freak albino ork, making it dark. Its like there are two different directors. One wants to a children's tale for kids (which is cool). One wants to do LOTR II "This time its ALL CGI." Really?

I could accept Radagast as comic relief forest dweller, but I think they took it a little too far.

Way too far. Of course I like that more than the whole Ork chasing them thing (Is that Azog?). uh...ok...

Yes but he isn't just any ork baddie.....He is an albino ork baddiee. Didn't you know that all baddies are made badder when they are albino?


GG

 generalgrog wrote:
Yes but he isn't just any ork baddie.....He is an albino ork baddiee. Didn't you know that all baddies are made badder when they are albino?


GG

He looks like a hairless dork. yes take that exactly where your gutter bound mind immediately went.
Plus he's only a big guy vs. a dwarf. He's strictly mediocre human sized.

 generalgrog wrote:
Yes but he isn't just any ork baddie.....He is an albino ork baddiee. Didn't you know that all baddies are made badder when they are albino?


GG

Hollywood has taugh me that Albinos are in fact evil by nature.

Wait they're not? I thought they were the cold calculating version of a red head, instead of the crazy version I know and love.

related

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2013/06/14/73576-an-unexpected-journey-extended-edition-given-rating/?fb_source=pubv1

I'm waiting for a Trilogy set to go next to my Bluray LotR: EE trilogy box. I must have symmetry! It is precious to us.

...and fleeting nudity

Like the article says, what???

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

I thought it was fairly obvious that Smaug was going to be a background threat in the first movie, like a dark cloud looming over everything. Even in the book they see the dragon for a bit, so it shouldn't have been a surprise that he wasn't in the first of three films.

Still, It would have been nice to see a full body shot of smaug in the flashback.

I disagree, that was one of the few things they got right. When you want to build up big scary monster, you don't show it completely at first. Think of Cloverfield.
I was actually disappointted that the trailer showed so much of Smaug. It somewhat ruins the surprise a bit. Feels like they're bit of jumping the shark here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

The Hobbit should be more lighthearted. But you're putting in Sauron and freak albino ork, making it dark. Its like there are two different directors. One wants to a children's tale for kids (which is cool). One wants to do LOTR II "This time its ALL CGI." Really?

Yeah, it's the exact same problem Star Wars prequels had. The tone of those movies was a total mess: "Hmm, I have to remember that these movies must be light-hearted too so lets have Jar-Jar fart here. Ok, now back to Qui-Gon Jin death scene." The Hobbit has very same problems. It could have been heroic dark tale with few lighter elements, or light-hearted fairy tale with some dark elements, but instead it's a convoluted mess of everything thrown together.