The Hobbit - Part 1

Awesome. I get excited every time I see this thread bumped, thanks!
 
Neutrino said:
I'm pretty sure that this is what Tolkien had in mind. Wizards in his universe are not quite mortals and there are a lot of references to destiny or the like. I always took the whole series as sort of an examination of how the most unlikely character could end up saving the world. It seemed to me that Gandalf played a major role (somewhat intentionally) in bringing that about.
Click to expand...
Not too sure about that man, Tolkien originally wrote the Hobbit for his children before he had any intention of writing Lord of the Rings. After he began writing LOTR he went back and amended some things in the Hobbit. The ring was originally quite innocuous. You can read some of the changes here http://www.ringgame.net/riddles.html the changes are in the blue text
 
Not exactly Hobbit related but an interesting article all the same.

Sir Peter Jackson gets 'special' tattoo

Sir Peter Jackson has had a matching tattoo inked in Queenstown along with a man he helped save from death row in the United States.

Jackson and his partner, screenwriter and producer Fran Walsh, helped fund a seven-year investigation that eventually led to Damien Echols - at present in New Zealand - and Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelly being freed from jail in August.

The men were accused of murdering eight-year-old Scouts Steven Branch, Christopher Byers and James Moore in West Memphis, Arkansas, in 1993. Misskelly and Baldwin were given life sentences. Echols was sentenced to death and was on death row.

Jackson was in Queenstown this week filming The Hobbit and it is understood he and Echols visited White Tiger Tattoo, in Cow Lane, on Tuesday to get tattoos.

Tattoo shop owner Greg Burt confirmed the men were there and had the tattoos done, but declined to give more details.

"It was kind of special. I'd like to respect them for it."

In 2007, new DNA tests showed the three men were not linked to the murders and in August they accepted a bargain known as an "Alford plea", that allowed them to publicly proclaim their innocence in exchange for pleading guilty in court and giving up their right to seek compensation for a miscarriage of justice.

Jackson has since said that despite their release from jail it was "very difficult to suppress a deep anger" at the lack of justice.
Click to expand...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/6023572/Sir-Peter-Jackson-gets-special-tattoo
 
God, that trailer made me realized I haven't been excited about a movie in a very long time...

I can't wait for this to come out next year
 
God, that looks amazing.
They've even got the songs in it!

I can't believe it's still an entire year away though, holy ****.
 
Looks great. Really glad that he seems to be embracing the more light-hearted tone of the book, as compared to LOTR.
 
Bad^Hat said:
Looks great. Really glad that he seems to be embracing the more light-hearted tone of the book, as compared to LOTR.
Click to expand...

Yeah looks like it's got the right atmosphere.

Sounds like the soundtrack is up to standards too.
 
So I'm the only one who really didn't like this very much at all? Seemed way too dark, grim, and dramatic altogether. And not just trailer editing, but a great deal of just the footage. Struck a whole different tone than the book did with me. Not that I ever was very interested in this after I heard it was going to be two parts.
 
yeah I think you're alone because that looked fantastic and loads of fun and not any of the things you just said
 
Sheepo said:
So I'm the only one who really didn't like this very much at all? Seemed way too dark, grim, and dramatic altogether. And not just trailer editing, but a great deal of just the footage. Struck a whole different tone than the book did with me. Not that I ever was very interested in this after I heard it was going to be two parts.
Click to expand...

dunno man, i mean the hobbit is a good fun adventure book, but it isn't without it's darker, bleak and dangerous passages. i mean, tolkien basically throws a big **** you to kids in it by killing off some of the dwarfs at the end, and it's filled with perilous dread throughout. i think the trailer hit the right spot, personally, and the chills i got reading the songs in the book are back again with this trailer. i think that's a good thing.

curious though - what about being in two parts puts you off? if anything, that only made me happier, to learn that there is going to be a lot more effort put into every little detail. the hobbit is, in retrospect, a short book, but it's so wonderfully intricate and descriptive in it's characters and landscapes that i think only one film (even to jackson's times) wouldn't do it justice.

curious ii: how does one not be interested in what is arguably going to be an absolutely colossal film filled to the brim with incredible actors, set-design/design, scope, scale and production? i mean, i'm not saying you cannot be interested just because it's going to be a huge hit, but more how can you not be interested in this when it's going to be so colossal in all other senses? even if i hated lord of the rings, i'd still really appreciate them as films, but then maybe i've invested far too much time into the ridiculous amount of hours of extras on the extended dvds. i can understand that some people don't want to look behind the curtain of movie magic, but a film like this intrigues me to no end in the same way that, say, ripley scott's direction and design for blade runner intrigues me even though it's not necessarily a film a really enjoy as much as i would like to.

these aren't personal attacks or ''WHY DON'T YOU LIKE THIS.'' comments, just curious.

edit: an easy answer for you to take regarding the last paragraph might simply be that you aren't a fan of jackson as a filmmaker or director, and i can appreciate that. there aren't any particular stand out elements to the guy that i put on the same scale as other directors, so i guess the one thing i do really like about the guy is when he goes out to make a film, he really goes all out to make a film. :p
 
Oh god they have the songs. If they put in "Fifteen Birds" like they did in the Bakshi version I loved as a kid, I will absolutely flip out in the theater and start singing along.
 
knut said:
these aren't personal attacks or ''WHY DON'T YOU LIKE THIS.'' comments, just curious.
Click to expand...

Personally, the reason I didn't like the Lord of the Rings trilogy is for the simple fact that the story took itself way too seriously for my taste. I usually like a medieval fantasy story only if it's over the top and ridiculous (example: Army of Darkness).
Form a cinematography stand point it the films are great, filled with beautiful set pieces. The actors did a good job. The special effects were top notch. The soundtrack fit well with the setting. So I can appreciate them as films, but they are still not my cup of tea.
I'll probably end up watching this once, when it's on HBO, for the CGI spectacle, the same way I did with Lord of the Rings.

knut said:
edit: an easy answer for you to take regarding the last paragraph might simply be that you aren't a fan of jackson as a filmmaker or director, and i can appreciate that.
Click to expand...

That's certainly not the case with me, since I did like Peter Jackson's version of King Kong.
 
Remus said:
Personally, the reason I didn't like the Lord of the Rings trilogy is for the simple fact that the story took itself way too seriously for my taste. I usually like a medieval fantasy story only if it's over the top and ridiculous (example: Army of Darkness).
Form a cinematography stand point it the films are great, filled with beautiful set pieces. The actors did a good job. The special effects were top notch. The soundtrack fit well with the setting. So I can appreciate them as films, but they are still not my cup of tea.
I'll probably end up watching this once, when it's on HBO, for the CGI spectacle, the same way I did with Lord of the Rings.
.
Click to expand...

well see this is what i was getting at - appreciating them on levels outside of the story itself. i'll be the first to admit that it's not particularly an amazing story or has the most engrossing narratives and arcs, but then it follows quite true to the book and i don't think that's anything amazing either. that said, i do enjoy them quite a lot, i think they're fun films.
 
God, aka Peter Jackson, looks like he's done it again.

I can't wait for the scene with the giant spiders!! Invisible bilbo slashing spiders muahahahahaha

This looks like it will be a rollicking barrel of funness.

Thank you Peter Jackson, my god. I will lay a new rose on my statue of you I have built in my bedroom. Hail jackson ,hail the great maker of movies.
 
Remus said:
Personally, the reason I didn't like the Lord of the Rings trilogy is for the simple fact that the story took itself way too seriously for my taste. I usually like a medieval fantasy story only if it's over the top and ridiculous (example: Army of Darkness)..
Click to expand...

Tolkien wasn't interested in writing an entertaining novel, but in mythological invention. His main aim when creating middle-earth was that England didn't really have much legend of its own as other places like Scandinavia did. Most of the things the wrote was pretty personal which he didn't intend on publishing... LOTR is only really a fraction of the work he did with middle earth. LOTR was mostly influenced by Beowulf and other norse myths, and that combined with his real world experiences in World-War 1 gave his narrative a more grave and serious tone than what later fantasy authors would often write. It's really the reason why I love LOTR, because it doesn't read like a fantasy novel as much as it does a mythological epic.
 
knut said:
dunno man, i mean the hobbit is a good fun adventure book, but it isn't without it's darker, bleak and dangerous passages. i mean, tolkien basically throws a big **** you to kids in it by killing off some of the dwarfs at the end, and it's filled with perilous dread throughout. i think the trailer hit the right spot, personally, and the chills i got reading the songs in the book are back again with this trailer. i think that's a good thing.
Click to expand...
Well that's all very true, but everything grim should more or less be contained to the second part I would think. Not to mention that those events are presented very distantly and directly, unlike the rest of the book, because Bilbo's pretty much completely out of it during all the battles. Certainly Bilbo's final conversation with Thorin should be rather sad and emotional, but that's about the extent of it. And the song was one of the most offputting things for me. That weird slow chorus was not at all what I envisioned when I read the book. I looked up that part just to be sure I remembered it right:

"'Now for some music!' said Thorin. 'Bring out the instruments!'

(a paragraph or two about them playing various wind instruments and a harp, so at the very least the song is wrong because it doesn't have any instruments playing)

(Then a ton of four short line stanzas, which I read at a much faster pace. It's romantic and nostalgic and adventurous and it never struck me it would be so solemn and slow. It just seems wrong. The lines are just so short, I can't see it being sung so slowly. And unless they've just edited it much shorter for the trailer, they've cut it down in length by about 75%)

"As they sang the hobbit felt the love of beautiful things made by hands and by cunning and by magic moving through him, a fierce and a jealous love, the desire of the hearts of dwarves." (I dunno, I don't think I can effectively argue my point, but I just feel the word choice and sentence structure give the impression of a much more joyous and fast pace of atmosphere and of the song itself.)
curious though - what about being in two parts puts you off? if anything, that only made me happier, to learn that there is going to be a lot more effort put into every little detail. the hobbit is, in retrospect, a short book, but it's so wonderfully intricate and descriptive in it's characters and landscapes that i think only one film (even to jackson's times) wouldn't do it justice.
Click to expand...
I just don't much like the idea of watching half a movie, which is effectively what going to see Part 1 is. The book can't easily be split into two satisfying individual stories. I can see where you're coming from with wanting as much in as possible, but the way I see it if you can't get everything in a single movie, then it shouldn't be made into a movie.
curious ii: how does one not be interested in what is arguably going to be an absolutely colossal film filled to the brim with incredible actors, set-design/design, scope, scale and production? i mean, i'm not saying you cannot be interested just because it's going to be a huge hit, but more how can you not be interested in this when it's going to be so colossal in all other senses? even if i hated lord of the rings, i'd still really appreciate them as films, but then maybe i've invested far too much time into the ridiculous amount of hours of extras on the extended dvds. i can understand that some people don't want to look behind the curtain of movie magic, but a film like this intrigues me to no end in the same way that, say, ripley scott's direction and design for blade runner intrigues me even though it's not necessarily a film a really enjoy as much as i would like to.
Click to expand...
Ah, well you got me here. I should've said I wasn't very interested in seeing it, or paying money for it. I do find the movie itself interesting, because it is a very impressive production in scale, and it's always interesting to see how the scenes I enjoy in the book are translated. And yes, I do adore some of the actors, etc.
edit: an easy answer for you to take regarding the last paragraph might simply be that you aren't a fan of jackson as a filmmaker or director, and i can appreciate that. there aren't any particular stand out elements to the guy that i put on the same scale as other directors, so i guess the one thing i do really like about the guy is when he goes out to make a film, he really goes all out to make a film. :p
Click to expand...
Yeah, this does have a lot to do with it. I honestly didn't care much for the LOTR movies outside of a few parts. It's not entirely Jackson though, as I really think these books are just incapable of being translated effectively.
Yuri said:
yeah I think you're alone because that looked fantastic and loads of fun and not any of the things you just said
Click to expand...
It doesn't look bad, I never said anything about that. It just looks very different from the book to me.
Bad^Hat said:
Looks great. Really glad that he seems to be embracing the more light-hearted tone of the book, as compared to LOTR.
Click to expand...

Yeah, maybe I'm just crazy. Because I definitely am not glad because to me it seems he is doing just the opposite.
 
4zhIt.jpg
7Bcpv.jpg
XIzyx.jpg
n3kK0.jpg
Hnvs2.jpg
hlQ0N.jpg
QV61c.jpg
 
They've only just gone up on The Hobbit's Facebook page so it's the first time I've seen them.
 
So it looks like there could be a chance that there will be a third movie, what do you guys think about this?

By the looks of things he's using the appendixes to flesh out the story with more background lore, at least it's a likely possibility. I'd be happy with three movies myself, especially if it means seeing more of the stuff Tolkien wrote that wasn't included in the story of the books. Then again, I'm a guy who happily sits through the extended versions of LOTR so I'm easy enough to please.
 
Ugh, what the hell.

2 movies was bad enough.
The book is no where near big enough to support three 3+ hour movies.
 
I have trouble seeing how they're gonna make three movies (which probably means nine hours of film, or thereabouts) from just one (not very long) book, even considering the added material of the Lord of the Rings appendix.

If they have the rights to the Silmarrilion, they can add some material from there (through for example flashbacks from Gandald, Elrond, Galadriel etc.). Galadriel has been on Middle-Earth for a shitlong time if I'm not mistaken (since before the First Age I think). I don't think they have those rights, however, and furthermore it would be hard to place those scenes in the context of the The Hobbit's narrative.
 
I'm pretty happy about it to be honest, especially if the third film is used to create a bridge between the two trilogies, which would be amazing.
 
Well if it was a bridge then it would be its own movie and not part of the first trilogy, making that one just two movies. Anyway, yuck. I ****ing hate splitting things into pieces.
 
happily sitting in the ''not bothered about a third film'' camp, eagerly looking forward to more delicious set pieces, art direction and martin freeman.
 
Film titles and release dates:

The final film in Peter Jackson’s trilogy adaptation of The Hobbit, by J.R.R. Tolkien, now titled “The Hobbit: There and Back Again,” will be released worldwide on July 18, 2014.

The title of the second installment in the franchise will be “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug,” and the fill will be released on December 13, 2013.

The first film in the trilogy, “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey,” opens this holiday season, on December 14, 2012. Shot in 3D 48 frames-per-second, the trilogy of films will be released in High Frame Rate (HFR) 3D, other 3D formats, IMAX and 2D.

From Academy Award®-winning director Peter Jackson, the trilogy of films is set in Middle-earth 60 years before “The Lord of the Rings,” which Jackson and his filmmaking team brought to the big screen in the blockbuster trilogy that culminated with the Oscar®-winning “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.”
Under Jackson’s direction, all three movies are being shot in digital 3D using the latest camera and stereo technology.

Additional filming, as with principal photography, is taking place at Stone Street Studios, Wellington, and on location around New Zealand.

http://the-hobbit-movie.com/2012/09/03/hobbit-trilogy-titles-and-release-dates/
 
I thought they were only releasing it in 48 FPS in a few select cinemas, on account of they'd have to spend thousands of dollars to upgrade their equipment to show it or something.
 
Seems like it's going the way of Star Wars.. 6 movies, last 3 are prequels to the story. Although these were ACTUALLY written before-hand and were planned. So they'll be a lot better to LOTR than EP456 were to EP123. I'm stoked on 3 movies, don't know why people are complaining.
 
'Stroked' is such an annoying word. People never used it until like a year ago, what's up with that? What's wrong with 'excited'?
 
I agree. Go **** yourself if you think "stoked" is an acceptable adjective to describe your excitement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

love_nutz2
Telltale's Back to the Future - the game
Replies
36
Views
2K
ríomhaire
ríomhaire
SpArKs
Why Go To The Cinema When You Can Just, Play The Games!
Replies
29
Views
872
Apocalypse89
Apocalypse89
thenerdguy
'Rings' hits $1 billion box office mark
Replies
8
Views
724
AmishSlayer
AmishSlayer
Back
Top