• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

In a hole in the ground, there lived a HOBBIT TRAILER

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kilgore Trout

Member
ultron87 said:
So I'm assuming the break between movies will be a bit after Bilbo gets the ring?
Click to expand...

Definitely later than that. That happens in the first quarter of the book. I don't know if it's been confirmed yet, but a lot of people think it will end when they're going down the river in barrels.
 
M

Mr. B Natural

Member
GCX said:
Gullum and the ring are pretty small part of the book but it's a simple way of showing the audience how the movie relates to LOTR in a short trailer.
Click to expand...
It was a long time ago, but I did read the Hobbit. In terms of film-time, you are right, but in terms of reveals and importance, it's pretty much the only thing that connects the overall arch, that I recall.
But it is the end game of the story. It's the "thing" that is suppose to grab you. It's the mystery, the allure and it's already been not only already been revealed but concluded. The hobbit isn't much of an origin story for anyone but the ring. The rest just reveals how cyclical the hobbit is to LOTR minus the urgency.

This movie is completely unnecessary to me. I guess I don't mind prequels, but prequels that don't really reveal much about the sequels I guess I do mind. Even the Golem's origin story has been explained, if I'm recalling the movies properly. If you just watched the movies, you may not know the EXACT story of Bilbo Baggins, but you don't really need to. You get it, in one short scene, you get it.

I actually thought it was brilliant to go straight to the LOTR and skipping the hobbit. That way, the golem, the ring and the hobbits are "discoveries" to the movie-goer. The reveals are plenty. But those reveals are over. They put the meat on one plate, rather than dividing it up and diluting it. You can't go back to the slower preequel after making that decision. I'm not saying this is the next Matrix 2 or anything, but it has more in common than I can support.

Some things that are 50% explained/assumed after 9 hours of movies already should be left that way, and the filler that is what is most of the Hobbit (and entire series) becomes too obvious knowing the ultimate conclusion before the beginning. Saving people from giant spiders and goblins isn't that heart-stopping when you know the entire world will be in danger one generation of hobbits later...and everything will turn out fine for mr bilbo, who ultimately is played off stage in the sequels.
 
L

levious

That throwing stick stunt of yours has boomeranged on us.
The Hobbit is a fantastic stand alone epic hero's journey, that it won't really add anything to the overall LOTR story is insignificant.
 
S

StealthGoblin

Banned
Cyan said:
Still think it's bullshit they made two movies out of this.

Still will be there day one. :p
Click to expand...

One movie for The Hobbit isn't enough. Instead, we get two movies and get to see where the fuck Gandalf went for a sizable portion of the book.

Any Tolkien fan would be in love with the idea of that.

Remember, if we went solely on what is in The Hobbit, we'd have to cover:

Bag End and Bilbo leading a fulfilling, happy Hobbit life.
Gadalf and the dwarves showing up.
Explain the quest.
Troll fight scene.
The scenes in the forest (spiders)
Goblin Attacks (Glamdring and Orcrist found)
Elves and Wolves
The Elvenking scenario and their escape
Beorn
Smaug
Smaug attacking Laketown
The Battle of Five armies
Journey home.

I would not be satisfied with anything less than 3 1/2 hours for a theatrical release on those.
 
cyberheater

cyberheater

PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
levious said:
The Hobbit is a fantastic stand alone epic hero's journey, that it won't really add anything to the overall LOTR story is insignificant.
Click to expand...

The Hobbit book is quite whimsical and light hearted. Definitely more aimed at children compared to the rather weighty tome of LOTR. I wonder if that will translate in the movie.
 
F

fanboi

Banned
Mr. B Natural said:
It was a long time ago, but I did read the Hobbit. In terms of film-time, you are right, but in terms of reveals and importance, it's pretty much the only thing that connects the overall arch, that I recall.
But it is the end game of the story. It's the "thing" that is suppose to grab you. It's the mystery, the allure and it's already been not only already been revealed but concluded. The hobbit isn't much of an origin story for anyone but the ring. The rest just reveals how cyclical the hobbit is to LOTR minus the urgency.

This movie is completely unnecessary to me. I guess I don't mind prequels, but prequels that don't really reveal much about the sequels I guess I do mind. Even the Golem's origin story has been explained, if I'm recalling the movies properly. If you just watched the movies, you may not know the EXACT story of Bilbo Baggins, but you don't really need to. You get it, in one short scene, you get it.

I actually thought it was brilliant to go straight to the LOTR and skipping the hobbit. That way, the golem, the ring and the hobbits are "discoveries" to the movie-goer. The reveals are plenty. But those reveals are over. They put the meat on one plate, rather than dividing it up and diluting it. You can't go back to the slower preequel after making that decision. I'm not saying this is the next Matrix 2 or anything, but it has more in common than I can support.

Some things that are 50% explained/assumed after 9 hours of movies already should be left that way, and the filler that is what is most of the Hobbit (and entire series) becomes too obvious knowing the ultimate conclusion before the beginning. Saving people from giant spiders and goblins isn't that heart-stopping when you know the entire world will be in danger one generation of hobbits later...and everything will turn out fine for mr bilbo, who ultimately is played off stage in the sequels.
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly...
it also has Sauron reveal I belive since the necromancer in the tower bla bla bla?
 
N

Neuromancer

Member
levious said:
The Hobbit is a fantastic stand alone epic hero's journey, that it won't really add anything to the overall LOTR story is insignificant.
Click to expand...
Agreed. It's a great adventure story that stands very well on its own merit; in fact I've always enjoyed it more than the LOTR books.

Remember Mr. B Natural, it's the journey, not the destination.
 
A

apana

Member
Mr. B Natural said:
It was a long time ago, but I did read the Hobbit. In terms of film-time, you are right, but in terms of reveals and importance, it's pretty much the only thing that connects the overall arch, that I recall.
But it is the end game of the story. It's the "thing" that is suppose to grab you. It's the mystery, the allure and it's already been not only already been revealed but concluded. The hobbit isn't much of an origin story for anyone but the ring. The rest just reveals how cyclical the hobbit is to LOTR minus the urgency.

This movie is completely unnecessary to me. I guess I don't mind prequels, but prequels that don't really reveal much about the sequels I guess I do mind. Even the Golem's origin story has been explained, if I'm recalling the movies properly. If you just watched the movies, you may not know the EXACT story of Bilbo Baggins, but you don't really need to. You get it, in one short scene, you get it.

I actually thought it was brilliant to go straight to the LOTR and skipping the hobbit. That way, the golem, the ring and the hobbits are "discoveries" to the movie-goer. The reveals are plenty. But those reveals are over. They put the meat on one plate, rather than dividing it up and diluting it. You can't go back to the slower preequel after making that decision. I'm not saying this is the next Matrix 2 or anything, but it has more in common than I can support.

Some things that are 50% explained/assumed after 9 hours of movies already should be left that way, and the filler that is what is most of the Hobbit (and entire series) becomes too obvious knowing the ultimate conclusion before the beginning. Saving people from giant spiders and goblins isn't that heart-stopping when you know the entire world will be in danger one generation of hobbits later...and everything will turn out fine for mr bilbo, who ultimately is played off stage in the sequels.
Click to expand...

Why does everything need to connect together? The reason the film was made is because The Hobbit is an interesting and inconic story in the LOTR universe and they wanted to give it life on screen.
 
D

Duress

Member
I'm confused how they're integrating young Bilbo and old Bilbo in this film. In the beginning of Fellowship they showed the older one picking up the ring and this one the younger one is meeting Gollum.
 
L

LCfiner

Member
Duress said:
I'm confused how they're integrating young Bilbo and old Bilbo in this film. In the beginning of Fellowship they showed the older one picking up the ring and this one the younger one is meeting Gollum.
Click to expand...

No, in fellowship it's still young bilbo picking up the ring. it's just that the actor changed. they had Ian Holm with a younger appearance but he just doesn't look as young as the new actor.

If Jackson wants to, he could edit out Ian Holm in that one scene in fellowship and put in Martin
 
H

Harry Potter

Banned
LCfiner said:
No, in fellowship it's still young bilbo picking up the ring. it's just that the actor changed. they had Ian Holm with a younger appearance but he just doesn't look as young as the new actor.

If Jackson wants to, he could edit out Ian Holm in that one scene in fellowship and put in Martin
Click to expand...

NO! No Geroge Lucas bullshit.
 
A

Atruvius

Member
LCfiner said:
No, in fellowship it's still young bilbo picking up the ring. it's just that the actor changed. they had Ian Holm with a younger appearance but he just doesn't look as young as the new actor.

If Jackson wants to, he could edit out Ian Holm in that one scene in fellowship and put in Martin
Click to expand...

Thank god he ain't George Lucas.
 
I

IAmtheFMan

Member
LCfiner said:
No, in fellowship it's still young bilbo picking up the ring. it's just that the actor changed. they had Ian Holm with a younger appearance but he just doesn't look as young as the new actor.

If Jackson wants to, he could edit out Ian Holm in that one scene in fellowship and put in Martin
Click to expand...

Slippery slope my friend...

Soon the witch king is throwing a torch at Aragorn first.
 
B

Bregor

Member
Mr. B Natural said:
It was a long time ago, but I did read the Hobbit. In terms of film-time, you are right, but in terms of reveals and importance, it's pretty much the only thing that connects the overall arch, that I recall.
But it is the end game of the story. It's the "thing" that is suppose to grab you. It's the mystery, the allure and it's already been not only already been revealed but concluded. The hobbit isn't much of an origin story for anyone but the ring. The rest just reveals how cyclical the hobbit is to LOTR minus the urgency.

This movie is completely unnecessary to me. I guess I don't mind prequels, but prequels that don't really reveal much about the sequels I guess I do mind. Even the Golem's origin story has been explained, if I'm recalling the movies properly. If you just watched the movies, you may not know the EXACT story of Bilbo Baggins, but you don't really need to. You get it, in one short scene, you get it.

I actually thought it was brilliant to go straight to the LOTR and skipping the hobbit. That way, the golem, the ring and the hobbits are "discoveries" to the movie-goer. The reveals are plenty. But those reveals are over. They put the meat on one plate, rather than dividing it up and diluting it. You can't go back to the slower preequel after making that decision. I'm not saying this is the next Matrix 2 or anything, but it has more in common than I can support.

Some things that are 50% explained/assumed after 9 hours of movies already should be left that way, and the filler that is what is most of the Hobbit (and entire series) becomes too obvious knowing the ultimate conclusion before the beginning. Saving people from giant spiders and goblins isn't that heart-stopping when you know the entire world will be in danger one generation of hobbits later...and everything will turn out fine for mr bilbo, who ultimately is played off stage in the sequels.
Click to expand...

The Hobbit doesn't need to justify itself by what it brings to LotR. It is a complete story by itself, and a good one. Remember: The Hobbit is not a prequel... it is not a story designed to expand on LotR. It is an original story which LotR happens to be the sequel to.
 
L

LCfiner

Member
Jtwo said:
What are you, living under a rock or something? Remember that GIANT NATIONAL CHART TOPPING SMASH HIT 'I jizzed in my pants?" Yes, people talk like this. For better or worse.
Click to expand...

not the same thing. People didn't start talking casually about how they were jizzing all over things after that.

But I guess different crowds will take to memes differently than others.
 
T

ToxicAdam

Member
I saw the cum spraying meme on Penny Arcade back in 2003-2004. It was a picture of a guy holding a fire hose between his legs and water spraying from his crotch. With a caption below it. Not sure where it came from before that.
 
D

Deleted member 22576

Unconfirmed Member
LCfiner said:
not the same thing. People didn't start talking casually about how they were jizzing all over things after that.

But I guess different crowds will take to memes differently than others.
Click to expand...

That song wasn't so much the "cause" of that phrase. Just a barometer for what how popular that turn of phrase actually is.
 
V

VGChampion

Member
cyberheater said:
The Hobbit book is quite whimsical and light hearted. Definitely more aimed at children compared to the rather weighty tome of LOTR. I wonder if that will translate in the movie.
Click to expand...

I really hope it does. I'll take an epic story and be fine with it but I would love a Hobbit movie that is much more light hearted.
 
K

krameriffic

Member
Galvanise_ said:
One movie for The Hobbit isn't enough. Instead, we get two movies and get to see where the fuck Gandalf went for a sizable portion of the book.

Any Tolkien fan would be in love with the idea of that.

Remember, if we went solely on what is in The Hobbit, we'd have to cover:

Bag End and Bilbo leading a fulfilling, happy Hobbit life.
Gadalf and the dwarves showing up.
Explain the quest.
Troll fight scene.
The scenes in the forest (spiders)
Goblin Attacks (Glamdring and Orcrist found)
Elves and Wolves
The Elvenking scenario and their escape
Beorn
Smaug
Smaug attacking Laketown
The Battle of Five armies
Journey home.

I would not be satisfied with anything less than 3 1/2 hours for a theatrical release on those.
Click to expand...

I am sure the Tolkien fans are happy to pay the money to see two movies just like the Twilight fans are happy to pay twice to see Breaking Dawn. I am sorry to draw a comparison to that piece of shit, but deep down, you know what this trend is: exploitative jerks in the industry realizing that you can almost double your cash intake by splitting a single book into two movies.
 
S

StealthGoblin

Banned
krameriffic said:
I am sure the Tolkien fans are happy to pay the money to see two movies just like the Twilight fans are happy to pay twice to see Breaking Dawn. I am sorry to draw a comparison to that piece of shit, but deep down, you know what this trend is: exploitative jerks in the industry realizing that you can almost double your cash intake by splitting a single book into two movies.
Click to expand...

Oh absolutely. Though if you remember the Appendices to the LOTR extended edition, initially Jackson pitched LOTR to be just two movies. It was an exec that greenlit three movies and we are much the better for that decision.

On this case, I hope it was Jackson who wanted the two movies. The writers deeply respect the source material and I suspect that they didn't feel that they could tell the story well enough in one movie.

In most other cases I'm against splitting books into two films (Deathly Hallows and The Hobbit are okay to me, even though I think DH pt 2 was cack).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

LTTP: Return of the King
Opinion Drama Community
11
1K
poppabk replied
Shadow of War should have led into/become a LotR "What If?" story (SPOILERS)
25
6K
brawly replied
  • Locked
Imagine A Hobbit/Lord of the Rings Mega Movie: How Would You Do It? (Spoilers!)
13
1K
davepoobond replied
  • Locked
LTTP: The Hobbit: BoFA Extended Edition (Also ME movie post-mortem)
3
2K
Megalosaro replied
  • Locked
I just saw the last Hobbit movie AKA The Hobbit: TBOTFA Spoiler Thread *SPOILERS*
10 11 12 13 14
650
95K
Dictator93 replied
Top Bottom