The Hobbit

[el_loco_avs]

So the trailer has been released. Looks awesome!! A year of waiting now follows

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0k3kHtyoqc

(edit: i searched for a hobbit topic. was surprised not to find one)

[the_bandersnatch]

I got goosebumps. The only downside is having to wait a whole year until it comes out...

[quantumcat42]

Never thought I'd be this excited by a bunch of short, hairy men breaking into song.

[Triss Hawkeye]

I'm really interested in how they're going to balance the fairly light-hearted feel of the book with what we've already seen of the world in The Lord of the Rings. However just looking at the trailer convinces me they've done a good job. *excited flail*

[Joeldi]

I'm really interested in how they're going to balance the fairly light-hearted feel of the book with what we've already seen of the world in The Lord of the Rings.

I think they'll probably just keep it grimdark. The writing style of the book may have been light-hearted, but the events that happened were all pretty terrifying. Plus, if The Silmarillion is anything to go by, Tolkien preferred things to be as tragic as possible.

[blackened45]

^ it will prolly be a balance of both, just like in the earlier installments in the LOTR movies.

i guess, more of the fun side of the Dwarves and their personal take on things, then there's the action on their quest. i think it will be a badass movie, maybe exceed the LOTR a little more.

[Izawwlgood]

I have to admit I didn't really like The Hobbit. I read it before LotR, and it made me think Tolkien was a dull author. That said, I'm pretty pumped for the film, as I'm sure it'll be a pretty fantastic high budget high production frollick through Middle Earth before Sauron really started stomping about. Which is pretty much all I think the Hobbit was.

[MisterCheif]

I have to admit I didn't really like The Hobbit. I read it before LotR, and it made me think Tolkien was a dull author. That said, I'm pretty pumped for the film, as I'm sure it'll be a pretty fantastic high budget high production frollick through Middle Earth before Sauron really started stomping about. Which is pretty much all I think the Hobbit was.

Honestly, I got the opposite impression from The Hobbit. I really liked it, but I could never finish reading the Lord of the Rings (which is odd, since I was fine reading The Silmarillion, as well as The Children of Hurin).

I'm really liking the style of the music. It's still epic, but it just feels more... dwarven, I guess?

[Izawwlgood]

A bunch of people I've spoken to about this have said be same thing. I think you gravitate towards one or the other. Hobbit is more about the personal adventures of some dudes in middle earth. Lotr is more about the sweeping epic events of a number of heroes in the midst of an epoch transistion. So, meh. I might I've it another read to see if I've warmed up to it.

[Ghostbear]

I'm one of those diehard LOTR fans that was very disappointed with the movie adaptions. I thought they did a terrible job representing the books. I won't go into details, since that'd be for another thread (and people would probably get annoyed with me, besides), but in spite of that, I'm tentatively hopeful for The Hobbit. The overall story and characters are simpler, and should lower the likelihood of the problems I had from the others showing up.

I do worry that they'll try too hard to connect it to the trilogy in more ways than it was already, or that they'll try to make it more "epic" than the story actually is. Otherwise though, I'm pretty hopeful that I'll be able to enjoy this.

[Vaniver]

I do worry that they'll try too hard to connect it to the trilogy in more ways than it was already, or that they'll try to make it more "epic" than the story actually is. Otherwise though, I'm pretty hopeful that I'll be able to enjoy this.

For example, I would bet that the Battle of the Five Armies will take up more than 2.5% of the movie's runtime (which is how much its description takes up of the book).

[Ghostbear]

I do worry that they'll try too hard to connect it to the trilogy in more ways than it was already, or that they'll try to make it more "epic" than the story actually is. Otherwise though, I'm pretty hopeful that I'll be able to enjoy this.

For example, I would bet that the Battle of the Five Armies will take up more than 2.5% of the movie's runtime (which is how much its description takes up of the book).

I'd say that's practically guaranteeable. My bigger worries are them doing things like having Gandalf or Elrond mention "dire times in the decades to come" or give other "hints" about the eventual story for LOTR that just weren't in The Hobbit. Also, if I recall, nobody* in the story of the Hobbit connects Frodo's ring to Sauron at all- which isn't surprising, since it was originally an unrelated story. I doubt they'll retain that though. I do feel they have a lot less room to butcher the characters though- there's already a built in comic relief drawf, at the very least.

* I believe Gandalf mentions in Fellowship that he had suspicions at the time, but I mean the actual book "The Hobbit". It's been a while since I've read either though, so I might be wrong.

[Diadem]

I didn't really like the trailer I have to admit.

The introduction of the dwarves made me think for a second that I was watching a slapstick. Sure the hobbit is more lighthearted than LOTR, and some of the dwarves are comical, but it's never slapstick. I didn't really like the casting of Thorin, who is portrayed in the book as very solemn, very proud and very stubborn. The way he was portrayed in the trailer made me think more of a rogue though.

Then there were all the parts with Galadriel, and Gandalf sneaking through a labyrinth. That has nothing to do with the Hobbit! Where are they even getting that from? Parallel to the Hobbit (but never mentioned in The Hobbit, only in LOTR and some other writings) is the story of Gandalf and the council attacking Sauron's fortress in southern Mirkwood. I felt like I was watching a trailer of that, with some dwarves throw in for good measure.

I try not to judge a movie by its trailer. But after seeing the trailer, I now definitely fear for the movie.

[charliepanayi]

I think it looks pretty good, but then I really liked Peter Jackson's adaptation of Lord of the Rings. They weren't perfect but they did almost a good job as they could have. Sorry Ghostbear but if they'd tried to please people like you the films would have been utterly dreary.

And I have no idea how anyone can 'fear' for a film based on a short trailer. It's a trailer!

[Ghostbear]

Sorry Ghostbear but if they'd tried to please people like you the films would have been utterly dreary.

Without hearing anything that I disliked about the LOTR, I feel that's a rather unfair statement to make; I'm not one of those people bitching about the omission of Tom Bombadil.

EDIT: To save a bit of back and forth, I suppose I'll give the low down of what I disliked:
1. The characters were all reduced to a pale shadow of themselves. This is most apparent in characters such as Gimli. He was not treated at all with the seriousness that he should have been. Him and Legolass were just a comic duo on the side.
2. Many characters that avoided (1) were instead completely misconstrued. Take Denethor- he was just turned into a generic uncaring asshole ruler. In the books, he had dedicated himself to Gondor, and only gave up at the end due to the Palantir's influence. Same with Boromir- he was cast as being evilly obsessed with the ring, when it was much more nuanced than that.
3. I hated the things they added to the story. I don't mind things being cut, or even minor changes like the removal of Glorfindel near Rivendell; I know that to fit things within a reasonable time frame some things need to be cut or minor characters switched out. They didn't have to add elves to Helm's Deep, or have the Witch King break Gandalf's staff (which was complete BULLSHIT- fuck you for doing that Jackson. Completely misses what Gandalf was). Those add nothing to the actual story, and either completely misrepresent the facts of the occasion or miss some of the major, actual, points of the story.

Since the Hobbit is a much less deep story however, I'm less worried about such changes happening. Also, I give credit where credit is due, and they did do a rather fantastic job visually.

[Vaniver]

The introduction of the dwarves made me think for a second that I was watching a slapstick. Sure the hobbit is more lighthearted than LOTR, and some of the dwarves are comical, but it's never slapstick.

Eh, "chip the glasses" seemed pretty slapslick to me, and many of the dwarves were humorous.

I didn't really like the casting of Thorin, who is portrayed in the book as very solemn, very proud and very stubborn. The way he was portrayed in the trailer made me think more of a rogue though.

I got a similar impression, but I think it's because the actor is too pretty. He doesn't do anything unsolemn, humble, or yielding in the trailer.

And I have no idea how anyone can 'fear' for a film based on a short trailer. It's a trailer!

Is it reasonable to be excited positively for a film because of a trailer? If so, why not negatively excited?

[Adam H]

Ghostbear:
1. Gimli and Legolas were absolutely a comic duo in the books.
2. Obviously characters will be more nuanced in books rather than movies.
3. My wife's favorite part of the entire movie trilogy is the elves arriving in Helm's Deep (no, I have no idea why). And I never even noticed that the Witch King broke Gandalf's staff in the movie. But both additions add drama without alienating all but the most insanely fanatic of tolkien fans.

The hobbit movie will be MUCH more different from the book than LOTR was, and rightly so. They absolutely should add in bits about LOTR, just as Tolkien would have done if The Hobbit was written after LOTR. The hobbit was a children's book that had nothing to do with LOTR until after it was written. And it was quite slapstick, as I remember it. Lots of drunk dwarves and elven parties and whatnot.

[Ghostbear]

1. They weren't only a comic duo in the books. I didn't read them as a comic duo at all, but even if we assume they were to some extent, they were actual, serious characters beyond that. The movies did not treat them, particularly Gimli, with the seriousness they should have.
2. That's not loss of nuance, it's complete obliteration of who the characters were.
3. At no point have I said that other people can't enjoy the movies, or even the parts I didn't like. None of the changes or addition add drama, and I resent the "insanely fanatic" moniker. I can dislike the films for the facets that make it a poor adaption without being fanatical, just like people who like the film can do so without being so short attention'ed as to prefer a story being reduced to a pale shadow of itself (see, it's not nice is it? So let's avoid such statements). Other people liking the films doesn't make it a good adaption, and the fact that "they'd have to in order to keep it interesting" isn't a good enough reason to do it- if the book is so incompatible with the movie format, you shouldn't try to make the leap between them.

None of that changes that the movies were, in my mind, a poor adaption. If they wanted to tell a story with more drama, or less nuanced characters, or with a comic duo, they could have written their own- Hollywood is full of talented writers. If you try to adapt something from one medium to another, you should do so because you want to tell the tale it does, and they clearly weren't happy with many of the details of the LOTR. It's like when what they're doing with lots of old game series- turning them from one type of game into a shooter- such as with the upcoming XCOM or Syndicate. They resultant game might be fun, but they'll be poor representations of the series. They could have gone with something original and used that, but they instead shoehorned the others in because of brand awareness. Peter Jackson could have directed a fantasy epic of his own making, and it could very well have turned out better, not being constrained by the story of another.

Tolkien already went back and LOTR'ized the Hobbit after the fact, to keep them consistent with the same universe- there's zero reason for the story to experience the same process all over again. If they add in bullshit to connect them even more strongly, it'll just be a money grab, hoping to boost sales of the LOTR movies a few years after their release. If they don't like the tale they're trying to adapt, they shouldn't adapt it in the first place!

[Lucrece]

The book puts the Witch King/Gandalf as a standoff that broke off when the King flew off after the horn. Considering Gandalf's status, in canon he would kick the Witch King's ass, for the Witch King was lesser to a Balrog.

So, they were right to omit that scene from the official release.

[Adam H]

Calling you insanely fanatic was a very poor choice of words, but your blind love of LOTR is irrational. Tolkien didn't write the perfect story. The LOTR movies are probably the most faithful successful book adaptations ever made, and your only argument could be that adaptations should never be done because you can never capture exactly the same story in two different mediums.

Tolkien LOTRized the hobbit in the sense that he took out inconsistencies; he did not rewrite the entire book. The moviemakers DID rewrite the hobbit for the screen and I for one hope they included scenes that tolkien chose not to.

[clockworkmonk]

I was on-board for the Hobbit when I learned they had cast Martin Freeman as Bilbo. the trailer and everything else is just gravy.

[Ghostbear]

Calling you insanely fanatic was a very poor choice of words,

Ah, glad you we got that out of the way, now we can-

but your blind love of LOTR is irrational.

Oh. One step forward, two steps back. Do you have any criticisms of my disliking the adaptions other than insulting me? I'm not insulting your position, and I'd greatly appreciate it if you treated me with the same respect. None of this has to do with "blind love" of the story.

Tolkien didn't write the perfect story. The LOTR movies are probably the most faithful successful book adaptations ever made, and your only argument could be that adaptations should never be done because you can never capture exactly the same story in two different mediums.

Of course he didn't write the perfect story, no one will ever write the perfect story. That doesn't change that if the studio didn't like the story they were working with, they should use their own. If they thought his story wasn't epic enough, or didn't contain enough drama, or the characters were too complex (and really, they weren't particularly complex to begin with, and the movies just reduced it even more) or anything else- then that means the story doesn't fit their purposes for anything besides "we want to make a lot of money". Now, of course they're going to want to make money, every company and person does to some extent, but I still reserve the right to be disappointed when that drive for money matters more than properly representing a story.

As for adaptions, I'm pretty sure Sin City was lauded quite heavily for its faithfulness to the source material. Of course, that should be of little surprise since the author was involved in it. The LOTR movies aren't the most faithful adaption of a written story to a movie.

Tolkien LOTRized the hobbit in the sense that he took out inconsistencies; he did not rewrite the entire book. The moviemakers DID rewrite the hobbit for the screen and I for one hope they included scenes that tolkien chose not to.

Again, if they don't like what they're working with, why are they working with it at all? The Hobbit is a self contained story, it's meant to be a self contained story, and the only reason it was LOTR'ized was to serve as some nice backstory. It doesn't need them to add in things completely unrelated to its story.

[charliepanayi]

Well this is now going to be three films, presumably covering stuff that isn't in The Hobbit as well etc.

Seems like overkill, but interesting to see how they structure it all now.

[Obby]

Man, I really need to finish the book before this movie comes out. I've started and stopped it 3 or 4 different times, and never made it very far in any of those times. There's just something about Tolkein's writing style that I can't stand. I was never able to make it past the end of Two Towers for this reason, as well.

[charliepanayi]

To be fair, you don't have to have read the books (or even to have enjoyed the books) to watch/like the films.

[Obby]

Of course. It's just a personal preference of mine that I finish the original medium of something before I move on to other mediums. If I have the time and ability, it's just what I like to do. There are exceptions, but it's just not what I enjoy doing typically, given the opportunity.

[mosc]

I don't agree at all with the complaints on the LOTR movies. Before they came out, I didn't think they'd get the ringwraiths right and the reality altering affects of the ring. It was an impossible task. They nailed it. The compulsion of the ring to return to it's master and it's power over frodo were both spot on. The central themes of brotherhood were kept in the forefront, as were the nuanced debates about the ring, absolute power, etc.

I was equally thrilled with the hobbit trailer. I want both dark overtones and light humor. I want to listen to that dwarven song again, friggin awesome. Song was such a key part of the hobbit, I'm glad they're recognizing that.

[cphite]

I don't agree at all with the complaints on the LOTR movies. Before they came out, I didn't think they'd get the ringwraiths right and the reality altering affects of the ring. It was an impossible task. They nailed it. The compulsion of the ring to return to it's master and it's power over frodo were both spot on. The central themes of brotherhood were kept in the forefront, as were the nuanced debates about the ring, absolute power, etc.

The biggest complaint I had was the depiction of Faramir. In the book, Faramir is wise enough regarding what the one ring represents that he refuses to even consider taking it from Frodo. In the movie, he's portrayed as somewhat of a weakling, bent on taking the ring just to prove himself to his father (who is also depicted as far less noble than in the books). In my opinion, out of all the characters in the story, Faramir was the most diminished by the film version.

It's unfortunate that Gimli became little more than comic relief; I thought he was a cool character in the books and a little of him was lost in the film.

Also, in the books Samwise was one of my favorite characters. He had this really noble quality about him. He's the only one in the entire story who gives up the ring without hesitation after holding it. And, while all of the other characters have reasons that compel them to take part in the quest, Sam is just being there for his friend. He's a bit of a whiner in the movies.

All of that said, I loved all three movies. They may not be entirely faithful to the book, but frankly I think that most of the changes were made because they just work better on film. And to be honest, a lot of the fun (for me) is endlessly debating the differences between the two versions

[charliepanayi]

Faramir isn't displayed as weak at all in the films, he's just someone who desperately craves approval from a distant father (especially in the extended editions, which flesh him out far more). In the books he barely has a personality at all.

[mosc]

Agreed. A lot of the complaints you're posting are more about the style of the actor's portrayal and are unavoidable when you go from an interpretive medium like a book or a screenplay into a graphical portrayal of a scene. They have facial expressions and tone of voice.

[johnie104]

In the Extra's of the Extended Edition they note that in the original script they had Faramir as he was in the book (not taking the ring), but Peter Jackson felt that wouldn't have enough drama, because then they would be captured by someone who only wants to help them in their quest and poses no threat to them.
They also like the idea of giving Faramir the personality arc, where he first wants to take the ring to please his father, and then learns that there are more important things, and so lets Frodo and Sam go.

Back on topic: I'm not sure how I feel about the fact that the Hobbit will be three movies. I mean, they would have to add quite a bit of story to fill those three movies. Although, now that I'm thinking about it, the 3 movies probably won't be 3 hours a piece.

[jawdisorder]

I'm not sure how I feel about the fact that the Hobbit will be three movies. I mean, they would have to add quite a bit of story to fill those three movies. Although, now that I'm thinking about it, the 3 movies probably won't be 3 hours a piece.

Two seemed reasonable. Three seems like they're going to have to take an awful lot of liberties with the actual story.

[mosc]

They're going to be much more loose from the book with the hobbit than they were with the LOTR.

[Vanguard]

I just heard about the 3 movies thing. I... will reserve judgement for now. I don't think it's necessary, but considering it's sort of the latest trend to split movies into "parts".
It's made by the same guy who did LOTR, right? That's why I'm not hopping on the "WHAT, WHY" bandwagon just yet.

[karpmage]

What do you guys think about 48fps? Are you going to go watch in 3-D, or 2-D? I'm not sure atm... I think I'll wait until after the movie has been released and check what the internet says about how they've handled the 48fps and 3-D.

[Ryom]

48FPS, it's about damn time.

[headprogrammingczar]

I think it's strange they aren't going straight to 120 (60 per eye). TV and games have been doing high framerates for years, you would think a full-length movie could handle some extra frames.

[charliepanayi]

I'll watch it in 2D, because it's not 3D.

[Ryom]

There are practical considerations for how fast you can run the shutter. Going to a 48 fps shutter from 24 requires double the light to get the same exposure (for digital, we can just double the ISO to make up the difference). But we can deal with higher ISO values to maintain exposure only up to a point. Running 120fps would require 3200 ISO if we started at 100 ISO at 24fps. That high of a gain on the sensor is going to be fairly grainy no matter what. I'm coming from a still photography background, so there are no doubt some aspects I've overlooked, but the general idea should be the same.

[headprogrammingczar]

That makes sense.