The Hobbit Trailer

[Acker79]

[yt]Uxrbpe-Jpqs[/yt]
http://youtu.be/Uxrbpe-Jpqs

 

[SeeGoals]

Only 12 months to wait then!

 

[Meade's Ball]

I hope it doesn't have a plodding and dreary 45-minute farewell scene like LOTR had. It should be fun enough, i hope, if not as spectacularly different as the LOTR trilogy had some of us feel from the start.

 

[matthew]

Looking forward to this, bet it's not out for ages though

 

[Acker79]

Looking forward to this, bet it's not out for ages though

What gives you that idea? Is it the line in the trailer "Out December 2012"? Or was it the first reply that we only have 12 months to wait?

 

[vegster]

They seem to have a fair bit " in the can" so why the delay ?

 

[Mellotron]

They seem to have a fair bit " in the can" so why the delay ?

Maximise takings by putting it in a "commercial season", or some bollocks. Big money films rarely just come out "when they're ready" nowadays, all planned to fit a schedule.

 

[vegster]

Maximise takings by putting it in a "commercial season", or some bollocks. Big money films rarely just come out "when they're ready" nowadays, all planned to fit a schedule.

I know that Jackson shot all 3 LOTR films in one to save costs etc and that they were released every couple of years to maximise income but this is just a one off and as such it seems a bit mean to plug it and then sit on it.

 

[FlownWest]

You realise it's actually 2 films... The second part will be released in 2013.

 

[tubaman]

It has always seemed a bit strange that this book was not made into a film/s before the lord of the rings trilogy. All a bit back to front.

 

[CorgiRegisteredFriend]

Not too worried about the wait. Plenty of decent films released before that- Bond. Batman and Avengers to name but three

 

[matthew]

What gives you that idea? Is it the line in the trailer "Out December 2012"? Or was it the first reply that we only have 12 months to wait?

I turned off before the 'out 2012 bit' and i didn't see the first reply!

 

[jakarta]

If you have read the books you will know that compared to Lord of the Rings The Hobbit is:

1. A childs Fairy Story that gets a bit serious at the end
2. About 10% the length of LOTR

Notwithstanding that Jackson cut LOADS out of LOTR including a very important chunk at the end regarding the return the Hobbits to a Mordorised version of the Shire and how Saruman really dies which makes much more sense of the protracted end of the 3rd film (i.e. there was still an important bit of the plot to play out after the fall of Sauron) I still cannot see how you can make TWO films out of The Hobbit!

On the other hand I quite fancy a film concentrating on the Tolkein version of the Dwarves, without doubt my favourite bunch in Middle Earth, swing your axe first and ask questions later, unlike those poncey Elves constantly reciting poetry at one another.....

But DON'T give them Sweaty accents this time around.....

 

[GBT25]

If you have read the books you will know that compared to Lord of the Rings The Hobbit is:

1. A childs Fairy Story that gets a bit serious at the end

Yes thats bang on! It's supposed to be a light hearted story about Bilbos 'Magical Ring' (Risk of an 8 post ban).........

I just hope they do Gandalf justice in this film as they totally ruined it for me in the last LOTR film. The fellowship is the best film and most true to the book.

Totally agree about the "Scouring of the Shire" too.

GB

 

[NMH]

It has always seemed a bit strange that this book was not made into a film/s before the lord of the rings trilogy. All a bit back to front.

I'm wondering that too. I wonder if there will be anything adversely affected by having been preceded by the trilogy?
Gollum must not be more sinister or forboding than the LOTR character was presented, Gandalf can't be even wiser, and the shire must have an air of innocence about it.....no horror flick style of threat or hanging fears.

 

[NMH]

If you have read the books you will know that compared to Lord of the Rings The Hobbit is:

1. A childs Fairy Story that gets a bit serious at the end
2. About 10% the length of LOTR

Notwithstanding that Jackson cut LOADS out of LOTR including a very important chunk at the end regarding the return the Hobbits to a Mordorised version of the Shire and how Saruman really dies which makes much more sense of the protracted end of the 3rd film (i.e. there was still an important bit of the plot to play out after the fall of Sauron) I still cannot see how you can make TWO films out of The Hobbit!

On the other hand I quite fancy a film concentrating on the Tolkein version of the Dwarves, without doubt my favourite bunch in Middle Earth, swing your axe first and ask questions later, unlike those poncey Elves constantly reciting poetry at one another.....

But DON'T give them Sweaty accents this time around.....

Not forgetting..... Tom Bombadil was completely absent from the LOTR films, so has to go out of the cinematic history instead of into it with the rest of the story.

Tom Bombadil - Lord of the Rings Wiki

 

[Cheshire Cat]

I can't see the dragon anywhere in that trailer

 

[Acker79]

I can't see the dragon anywhere in that trailer

It's only part one of the film. I think, if he does appear in the first part, it's probably a case of wantin to establish the film takes place before Fellowship.

 

[Muhammad - I’m hard - Bruce Lee]

Totally agree about the "Scouring of the Shire" too.

GB

indeed

 

[SeagullSongs]

It has always seemed a bit strange that this book was not made into a film/s before the lord of the rings trilogy. All a bit back to front.

Because there has NEVER EVER been a massive multi-film story where the films were made in the wrong order...