OT: The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug teaser trailer

Submitted by Dilla Dude on June 11th, 2013 at 1:45 PM

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?}

Comments

Logan88

June 11th, 2013 at 6:39 PM ^

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.

JV 97

June 11th, 2013 at 9:31 PM ^

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.

JamieH

June 12th, 2013 at 12:54 AM ^

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.

meddler

June 12th, 2013 at 7:53 AM ^

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.

JamieH

June 12th, 2013 at 10:49 AM ^

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. 

FreddieMercuryHayes

June 11th, 2013 at 1:55 PM ^

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.

gopoohgo

June 11th, 2013 at 2:04 PM ^

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.

MGoneBlue

June 11th, 2013 at 3:34 PM ^

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.

M-Wolverine

June 11th, 2013 at 4:31 PM ^

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.

Jaqen H'ghar

June 11th, 2013 at 2:23 PM ^

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.

Z

June 11th, 2013 at 2:37 PM ^

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.

Bombadil

June 11th, 2013 at 2:43 PM ^

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.