OT: The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug teaser trailer
I know it is a slow news day, but I figured this would interest most of the MGoFaithful. I mean c'mon, it's The Hobbit!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeGb5XGk2U0
For those wondering, the elf with Legolas is lady elf Tauriel, played by Evangeline Lilly (Kate from Lost), a Mirkwood Elf warrior, an invention of Peter Jackson & Crew.
We also get our first look at Smaug the dragon. (OMGSMAUG!)
The Desolation of Smaug opens in theaters on December 13, 2013.
Thoughts?
{Edit: Turns out I suck at embedding. Can someone help me out?}
I was wondering what happened to Orlando Bloom. It's like he used to be in movies but now is not in movies anymore.
What ever happened to Gena Davis?
re: Orlando Bloom...I'm guessing it had something to do with industry people finally realizing that he was simply a pretty boy who couldn't act his way out of a paper bag.
re: inclusion of Tauriel and Legolas in The Hobbit: WTF?!? I'm glad that someone is making Tolkien movies but these completely unnecessary alterations are really annoying.
re: Your avatar: Automatic +1 every time you post.
Legolas was in The Hobbit (the book), so... yeah.
I just re-read The Hobbit about 6 weeks ago and I am pretty sure Legolas was NOT mentioned in the novel at all.
Legolas was definitely not in the Hobbit. Him being put in the movie is annoying, but nowhere near as bad as Glorfindel's part in LotR's being given to Arwen. That just ruined the whole thing for me and I pray Jackson is never allowed to butcher the Silmarillion.
He's not an active character, but is mentioned as being son of Thranduil of Mirkwood.
That *mention* takes place at the Council of Elrond in FotR, not The Hobbit.
Ok, I'll go look it up and get back to you. I'm not wrong.
edit: I'd like to revise my statement to I don't think I'm wrong.
LOL...ok. I'll check back for your report.
It isn't like Glorfindel did anything THAT amazing. The poing of giving the ride to Rivendell to Arwen was that Tolkien, for all of his greatness, managed to go 4 books without having a woman do a single damn notable thing. At least by giving that act to Arwen you established her character as having some actual skill and merit (making her a worthy mate for Aragorn) and gave a woman something heroic to do in the movies.
Yeah, it was a change from the books, but it was one I could live with. They wanted to make the movies appeal to more than just guys, and that meant adding in a character that wasn't a guy. It didn't really change the story at all. And just having Arwen show up at the end to marry Aragorn without having done jack crap in 3 movies would have been odd and not very satisfying for most viewers.
The *merit* of Arwen and the rest of the High Elves is rooted in things far more meaningful than a brief heroic act. So much so, that one could easily make the argument that Aragorn is lacking the proper merit to wed Arwen.
The uniqueness of Tolkien's Middle Earth is that it goes far beyond an epic war story. He created an entire world with history, language, and culture. To better appreciate the union of Aragorn and Arwen, one needs to be familiar with these things. The movies, of course, could never give this proper treatment.
You have to give Arwen's character context IN THE MOVIE. Just telling people that "she's all awesome and stuff" in some voiceover would have just been bullshit. So having her show up and do something heroic makes her a far more interesting character IN THE MOVIE.
The movies had a few hours to tell the story. They didn't have time to delve into all of the obsessive details that Tolkien fleshed out in his fantasy world, which was obviously more real to him than the real world was.
Your point is well made. I have no idea what it's like to tackle those sorts of issues as a director.
Maybe you can explain this: Why the hell did Jackson put the elves in the battle at Helm's Deep?
Was orlando bloom playing two parts? Blonde elf and darked hair guy towards the end.
I hate spiders. So ya the faster they get through Mirkwood the better.
My thoughts are that it's a shameless money grab to turn such a short book into three freaking movies. The pace of the first was slllooooowwww. I shain't be seeing it in theathers.
For pretty much the reasons you gave.
I'm sure I'll see them all at some point, but I just can't get excited about it.
Yeah, I waited to watch An Unexpected Journey on Blu-ray from my local Redbox. Glad I did, too; it was a decent enough movie (and I like Martin Freeman in just about anything) but I'm glad I only paid $1.50 to see it rather than $9.00.
I was skeptical going in, but I had the opposite reaction. I thought the pace was fine, and I liked the lighter tone than the Lord of the Rings trilogy.
There's plenty of content in the book for three movies (especially when you can expand on things that were mentioned in brief e.g. Dol Guldur, the White Council).
been put in two movies. But with all the made-up scenes and embellished events only casually mentioned in the book, Jackson was able to go to 3 movies. The first movie was very good, so he's avoided having the story drag on at least so far.
They announced a fourth one. The Hobbit: The Quest for More Money.
If they make the Children of Hurin into a 5 part film series we know we are in serious trouble.
There's enough material between The Silmarillion, The Unfinished Tales, The Book of Lost Tales and the Childen of Hurin to make at least three more movies if anyone wanted to do it.
The 1st Hobbit was excellent; pretty true to the book.
Very much looking forward to the 2nd.
FWIW it looks as if they are going to be including a portion that was not included in the Hobbit but alluded to, the attack on Dol Gudar by the White Council, driving the Necromancer (aka Sauron) out, but towards rebuilding Barad-Dur in Mordor.
I am looking forward to their depiction of this. Except for the rabbit-driven sled, I thought they did a good job with Radagast.
Radacast was fine and all but he's really more of a Silmarillion character than anything else, I'm more excited to see how they portray Beorn.
Certainly we will be shown him morphing from man-form to bear-form but that may not happen until the Battle of Five Armies in the third installment.
I loved the first one. Can't wait for this one.
The Azog subplot is made-up. I wish they wouldn't make wholesale changes to the story...seems unneccessary.
Creative license...but Azog is a pretty good villain, and excluding Smaug, there wouldn't be one otherwise for the majority of the book.
Actually the Azog subplot is alluded to in the appendix in Return of the King, but in the books, he actually is killed outside Moria and it's his son who leads the charge in the Battle of Five Armies. The battle of Moria was taken straight from the books. It's actually a rather small tweak and is still faithful to the stories.
Exactly. Azog is long dead by the time An Unexpected Journey occurs. This is no small tweak.
Gesundheit.
You know, up till just now, I thought goblins and orcs were different (if similiar) things, but Tolkien thought of them as different ways of saying the same thing. I always assumed from reading that the smaller goblins were in the mines and tunnels of the mountains in the Hobbit, and the bigger orcs were out in the open. But that might have been the D&D influences on me.
Smaug seems nice.
Luke Evans as Bard the Bowman seems like a great fit.
I don't care how much of a money grab this is, anything that will let me escape to Middle Earth (from Westeros of course) for any amount of time is worth it. The longer the better.
It's surprising to me how excited people are about this second installment. The first movie was a big letdown for me - it felt like Star Wars Episode I sometimes with the juvenile scenes at the beginning. I will watch this one...after it gets released to video.
Same here. Frankly, I thought the first one was just awful. I will not be putting any more of my money into Peter Jackson's pockets.
I should troll this thread re: the lack of a certain character but I too am excited about this 2nd movie.
Goldberry, however, is royally pissed.