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 don't know if that trailer could have made me less excited. I mean I loved the last trailer (for the first part) and it got me excited, even though I knew almost nothing was going to really happen since it was split into 3. This one though...just awful.

Its blocked for me at work. Is it different?

 Frazzled wrote:
Its blocked for me at work. Is it different?

Different as in not Tolkien, yes.

Jackson is trying to add too much of his own content, sadly 'needed' in order to stretch the story over three films, to milk the cash cow to maximum. And that doesn't lead to quality, it leaves to the saga feeling thin, sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Its blocked for me at work. Is it different?

Different as in not Tolkien, yes.

Jackson is trying to add too much of his own content, sadly 'needed' in order to stretch the story over three films, to milk the cash cow to maximum. And that doesn't lead to quality, it leaves to the saga feeling thin, sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread.

I'm sorry to clarify is this the same as the trailer that shows Smaug's head coming around (epic cool) and then elven monkey people flying through the trees chasing after the dwarves after they escaped in barrels (really stupid).

I agree with your statements though. I didn't like the Hobbit. I liked bits of it: Gollum, the trolls, and the Storm Giant Battle but most of it was meh. I hated Radagast and all the ork posse nonsense.

No this is the new fuller trailer, released today.

You hear Smaug this time.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Its blocked for me at work. Is it different?

Different as in not Tolkien, yes.

Jackson is trying to add too much of his own content, sadly 'needed' in order to stretch the story over three films, to milk the cash cow to maximum. And that doesn't lead to quality, it leaves to the saga feeling thin, sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread.

I'm sorry to clarify is this the same as the trailer that shows Smaug's head coming around (epic cool) and then elven monkey people flying through the trees chasing after the dwarves after they escaped in barrels (really stupid).

I agree with your statements though. I didn't like the Hobbit. I liked bits of it: Gollum, the trolls, and the Storm Giant Battle but most of it was meh. I hated Radagast and all the ork posse nonsense.

Ah, in that case this trailer is basically 'Look, Legolas is back! Everyone come see, he's the reason you liked the original LoTR films right?'

I have to admit Smaug's voice sounds good to me, whoever they got was a good choice

edit: Ah it's Cumberbatch. Cool

Said it many times here before...after the success of LOTR, Jackson received too much power and ego and forgot how to cut the darn film.

His next project is undoubtedly a real-time Silmarillion.

I still don't understand what the feth Legolas is doing in the Hobbit...

 Gutsnagga wrote:
I still don't understand what the feth Legolas is doing in the Hobbit...

Eye candy young Padiwon, eye candy.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Gutsnagga wrote:
I still don't understand what the feth Legolas is doing in the Hobbit...

Eye candy young Padiwon, eye candy.

I didn't know Dachshunds liked Orlando Bloom...

Seriously though, I'm pretty disappointed at how the original plot has been dissected and had bits pulled off and replaced with 'eye candy.'

For some reason I just couldn't get into the hobbit after having watched LotR. I started falling asleep during the movie and I never do that so :(

I like the Hobbit book, it's short and too the point.

These three films are bloated dribble. I believe that the last film is only about the battle of the Five Armies and what happens after, that is like fifteen pages of book.

 Gutsnagga wrote:
I still don't understand what the feth Legolas is doing in the Hobbit...

They spend a fair amount of time in Thranduil's court in Mirkwood in the books; Legolas is Thranduil's son.

Most of the stuff that's been "added by Jackson" was just taken from the appendices of the other books, not actually created by Jackson. Just because it wasn't included in the original book of The Hobbit doesn't mean it didn't happen during the story, just that it wasn't covered very thoroughly.

The problem is, it doesn't add anything to the story.
And that ork posse thing is made out of whole cloth. WHY???

 Goliath wrote:

 Gutsnagga wrote:
I still don't understand what the feth Legolas is doing in the Hobbit...

They spend a fair amount of time in Thranduil's court in Mirkwood in the books; Legolas is Thranduil's son.

Most of the stuff that's been "added by Jackson" was just taken from the appendices of the other books, not actually created by Jackson. Just because it wasn't included in the original book of The Hobbit doesn't mean it didn't happen during the story, just that it wasn't covered very thoroughly.

Yeah I was aware of the stuff from the appendices added to the first hobbit movie, I found that really enjoyable, l especially liked the sections with Sauron the necromancer in it.
I don't remember any references to Legolas being in contact with the Dwarves at any point in time though, it's stuff like this that annoys me.
If you can point out an appendix that contains this information I would happily read it, and I'm sorry for my ignorance in advance.

Wells theres a hot elf girl killing things - so thats a good thing

I have no problems with the White Council being added, or Saurons awakening or even Legolas, as he was almost certainly there in Thranduil's court.

However the addition of a BS subtext that isn't necessary spoils the story.

Just in case anyone misses this point, Tolkien was exciting enough with minimum acrobatics, and one doesnt need to surf on a shield or become a sword wielding traceuse for a fight or adventure to be interesting. All too often this is forgotten.

The Star Wars trilogy had minimum acrobatics, the prequels were full of it greatly to the detriment of the story. Tolkiens heroes were rarely like Spiderman. I want to see fights like we saw in the 1980 version of Conan the Barbarian, with testosterone and risk of dismemberment emphasised, not funky dance routines.
If this doesn't sound right remember whats the hottest property in fantasy right now, Game of Thrones. I think half its charm is because the combat is to the point, even if the combatants are heroes.

 Goliath wrote:

 Gutsnagga wrote:
I still don't understand what the feth Legolas is doing in the Hobbit...

They spend a fair amount of time in Thranduil's court in Mirkwood in the books; Legolas is Thranduil's son.

Most of the stuff that's been "added by Jackson" was just taken from the appendices of the other books, not actually created by Jackson. Just because it wasn't included in the original book of The Hobbit doesn't mean it didn't happen during the story, just that it wasn't covered very thoroughly.

Sorry no, he changes the story significantly. He did the same in The LOTR just not to this extent. Don’t get me started on the Helms Depp nonsense...

Spartak wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

 Gutsnagga wrote:
I still don't understand what the feth Legolas is doing in the Hobbit...

They spend a fair amount of time in Thranduil's court in Mirkwood in the books; Legolas is Thranduil's son.

Most of the stuff that's been "added by Jackson" was just taken from the appendices of the other books, not actually created by Jackson. Just because it wasn't included in the original book of The Hobbit doesn't mean it didn't happen during the story, just that it wasn't covered very thoroughly.

Sorry no, he changes the story significantly. He did the same in The LOTR just not to this extent. Don’t get me started on the Helms Depp nonsense...

The only parts of LotR that sucked were the parts where Jackson deviated from the book. With possible exception of the magically appearing forest, as Tolkien was very unclear himself on what was going on.

I liked the Elves turning up at Helms Deep also don't mind the whole Elves are awesome acrobatic fighters vibe - which does reflect the novels rather than more modern rpgs -Elves in that world are just better at everything.

Adding a love interest for Legolas is interesting..............guessing she is not going to make it....

Liked the White Council stuff in the Hobbit film.

 Orlanth wrote:

Just in case anyone misses this point, Tolkien was exciting enough with minimum acrobatics, and one doesnt need to surf on a shield or become a sword wielding traceuse for a fight or adventure to be interesting. All too often this is forgotten.

QFT.

I saw the first one with my dad. I wish I could see the next one with him.
but I will just take my nephews to it instead.

I really enjoyed the first Hobbit movie. In fact, I like it better than the LotR movies. I like that they're stretching it out. Hurr hurr, Hollywood wants to make money and we're all clearly geniuses for pointing it out ... but on the other hand Middle Earth is a big place and having three movies makes me feel like there is time to really explore it and get into it. If anything, it wouldn't have been terrible to have more than three LotR movies.

I think they should have just made one film, and stuck to the original storyline.
I mean, the necromancer bit is shaping up to be cool, and it actually happens (behind the scenes) in the books, but where the hell did Tolkien have Radagast being a dwarf-sized halfwit with a pet hedgehog called SEBASTIAN!?!

And as for adding the girl elf... urgh. At least with Legolas, you could explain it away, but that character just says to me that someone decided there needed to be a "strong female character" in there.

(Note - nothing against strong female characters - Eowyn in LOTR was well done, I thought - but again, she was intended to be part of the story, rather than an add-on.)

Phew... Ok, rant over

The Hobbit was the first book I ever red. I was 7, and I cried when, at the end, I realised the story simply wouldn't go on (I didn't know about LoTR).

It took me three sitting to get through the last gak Jackson regurgitated.

So no, I'm not excited about this new one.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I saw the first one with my dad. I wish I could see the next one with him.

I think I catch what you're saying between the lines. I feel that same way about mine.

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I saw the first one with my dad. I wish I could see the next one with him.

I think I catch what you're saying between the lines. I feel that same way about mine.

My dad is what go me into all things nerdy. So im going to pass it onto my nephews, who are like my kids(For now)

Still haven't seen the whole of the first film, and really must get round to it. Heating system in the crappy local cinema had broken and it was bloody freezing, girlfriend had had enough and that was that - got to the bit where Sylvester McCoy was racing around on the rabbit-sleigh.

Pretty sure thorin never told the elves where he was going or why in the book.