HOBBIT TRAILER #1

"I'll admit I'm a bit surprised that the meter survived this experiment, but I guess that says something about the quality of the trailer."- Eldo

Actually it says more about the quality of the meter. Thingshave moved on since the days of the LotR's film. What after all those explosions and crabbit clouds forming over Scotshobbitland. The new meter was specifically designed to read levels high enough for Th inlight of that. It did smoke a bit a few times but no explosions, so far.

I suppose that's a plus. I remember the days when all Forumshire was rocked by explosions and saw the sun blotted out several times a week.

Closeup of the axe in Bifur's head since it went by so fast, courtesy of TORn. I know a number of people missed this. TORn claims that the axe had to be left in Bifur's head for "medical reasons" and that dwarves "know a thing or two about biology" because Gimli makes a comment about the nervous system in The Two Towers. I wonder what doctors they consulted to determine that sometimes an axe should be left sticking out of your forehead.

Ah you mean the nervous system line that stood out like a badly written inapprorpiate, out of time, bit of dialogue poorly interjected onto the TT film? That bit of dialogue?
Now thats some ego, to take a mess you made in the past and use it as an excuse for a terrible idea you've had about a dwarf going about with a bit of axe in his head and claim it as a good tie-in!

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Ah you mean the nervous system line that stood out like a badly written inapprorpiate, out of time, bit of dialogue poorly interjected onto the TT film? That bit of dialogue?

That's the one! Gotta be a nominee for Worst Piece of Dialogue in the Trilogy, alongside such masterpieces of verbal craftsmanship as "A diversion".

Now thats some ego, to take a mess you made in the past and use it as an excuse for a terrible idea you've had about a dwarf going about with a bit of axe in his head and claim it as a good tie-in!

I'm not actually sure if TORn came up with that "justification" on their own or if it's from the film-makers. But it's dumb either way.

I've already bet my sisters that Legolas' one line will be him talking to Gloin in the dungeons, and will be something like " blah blah blah.... you're in a dungeon. There is no escape." Placing bets now ladies and gentlemen! Starting at 5 bottles of Buckie! Legolas' only line will be something entirely pointless, but we won't be surprised!

I'm a little late to the party, but the thing that stood out in the trailer for me was that the story will be told as one of several ways Bilbo has recounted it to Frodo. That and the featuring of the dwarves' ballad seem to imply a tale within a tale within a tale.

I rather like that. It seems to fit the folkloric spirit of Tolkien and his justification for the many changes to the Hobbit over time as explained by Bilbo's retellings of the tale.

This would also allow for occasional voice-over narration by Bilbo. In general I'm not a big fan of narration in a movie, but I'd make an exception for putting Tolkien's wonderful prose in the mouth of Ian Holm over good cinematography.

If PJ can pull off this storytelling hat-trick I can forgive him many things.

Possibly even the axe head.

Good to see you back on the forum David. I have less confidence in PJ than you to pull off this 'story-telling trick'- story telling is his weak point in my view.
I agree about narration being an opportunity- but I think it was one they missed. The book is more child friendly- I think things like talking trolls and birds PJ could have got away with easier if he had presented it as Bilbo telling the story to infant Frodo and Sam perhaps, maybe even young Merry and Pippin there too and Fatty Bolger- then the childlike aspects could have been preserved without it contravening PJ's LotR's mood.

Here's the dwarves at the Council of Elrond from FotR.
Now these dwarves should, roughly, be the same generation as those in TH (indeed presumably one of them is Gloin). Yet they look nothing like those in TH- just a case of fashions change?
I know the argument is to differentiate them but I think part of the fun could have been in their similarities. And if they had kept the coloured hoods that would have been an easy visual identifier.

I agree that dwarves should have big beards, but as a man who sports a beard bigger than many of the TH dwarves I can say with authority that it takes a LOT of grooming to keep a beard from turning to dreadlocks when traveling rough, and those Council of Elrond dwarves have beards that would look just as rediculous to me on a traveling dwarf as an axe head.

If I were doing the design, I'd have different colored beards braided and matted in different nasty shapes, with lots of scratching and picking of lice. Nothing says "dwarf" to me like lice.

Tinuviel wrote:Placing bets now ladies and gentlemen! Starting at 5 bottles of Buckie! Legolas' only line will be something entirely pointless, but we won't be surprised!

Was it said somewhere that Legolas will have only one line of dialogue? I assumed that he would have at least a few more to justify his return and satisfy the Orly fangirls. Speaking of which, are Orly fangirls even a thing anymore? I thought his day in the hunky sun had ended and the torch been passed to a new generation.

Hey David, good to see you around!

David H wrote:I'm a little late to the party, but the thing that stood out in the trailer for me was that the story will be told as one of several ways Bilbo has recounted it to Frodo. That and the featuring of the dwarves' ballad seem to imply a tale within a tale within a tale.

It appears that way to me as well. I assume that the 'framing device' of Bilbo and Frodo during the timeline of LOTR will set up Ian Holm-era Bilbo explaining his story. I don't think this is necessary but I think it could be handled well. I would have said it would allow for a "bridge" to LOTR without impeding on the main storyline, but the inclusion of Bilbo visiting the Shards of Narsil shrine in Rivendell seems to suggest that they will include additional references to the trilogy as well.

I'm not sure that there will really be any narration, though. Aside from the prologue to FOTR and a little bit from Frodo at the end of ROTK I can't recall any voice-over narration during LOTR, despite many instances when it would have been easier to use that to explain complicated ideas. While I agree that The Hobbit presents a rare instance where voice-over narration could actually work without being really cheesy, I wonder if PJ will do so, given that he largely resisted that temptation before. It'll be interesting to see.

If the narrative is being told to an adult Frodo on the eve of the Party, I can tell myself as I'm watching the movie that the Hobbit as I first knew it is a version of the story as told to a younger Frodo, and that what I'm currently watching, darker and more violent with fewer talking creatures, is just a later telling by Bilbo for a more adult audience.

Artificial I know, but if I'm going to pay good money to see a movie (and I inevitably will) I'm going to do my best to enjoy it first before I start picking it apart.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Now these dwarves should, roughly, be the same generation as those in TH (indeed presumably one of them is Gloin). Yet they look nothing like those in TH- just a case of fashions change?

Interestingly, Gloin in The Hobbit has one of the most LOTR-esque designs of any of the Dwarves. I'm not sure if this was done intentionally or not, but I think it's a nice touch. Of course, it would have been nicer to see more consistency throughout, but that wasn't to be expected in the first place.

I know the argument is to differentiate them but I think part of the fun could have been in their similarities. And if they had kept the coloured hoods that would have been an easy visual identifier.

There's certainly nothing wrong with visually distinguishing the Dwarves (as I suspect you agree), but the big problem is how un-Dwarvish most of them look. Quite apart from inconsistencies between LOTR and TH (which are an issue the film-makers should be trying to avoid, to be sure), the Dwarves simply don't look Dwarvish. I mentioned showing the trailer to my brother in another thread, and how he said the Dwarves simply were not Dwarves.

I'm actually reminded heavily of the much-criticized Dwarves from the movie Eragon. They were as tall as humans and bore no particular physical distinctiveness from humans, but they were supposed to be Dwarves. There's a lot to dislike about Eragon, but this issue was rightly singled out as a significant design problem. Yet the PJ apologists (especially on sites like TORn) seem to have no problem with the Dwarves in The Hobbit.

David H wrote:I agree that dwarves should have big beards, but as a man who sports a beard bigger than many of the TH dwarves I can say with authority that it takes a LOT of grooming to keep a beard from turning to dreadlocks when traveling rough, and those Council of Elrond dwarves have beards that would look just as rediculous to me on a traveling dwarf as an axe head.

That's an interesting point, and as someone too young to grow a beard it hadn't really occurred to me. Out of curiosity, what did you think of Gimli's beard in LOTR? Would that have been reasonably manageable on a long journey (if I recall correctly it was partially braided) or was it also too showy?

David H wrote:Artificial I know, but if I'm going to pay good money to see a movie (and I inevitably will) I'm going to do my best to enjoy it first before I start picking it apart.

I hate to sound like I'm defending PJ but there is at least some basis for considering that. In "The Quest of Erebor" in Unfinished Tales, Gandalf stated that the story would have been quite different if he had written it rather than Bilbo, and Bilbo's own story was retroactively stated to have gone through revisions once Tolkien started revising the book in the real world.

However, there are a few issues raised by this. First, the film rights to Unfinished Tales were never sold and therefore the film-makers have no legal or moral right to be using anything from that book. Second, regardless of its strict factual accuracy, the children's-book-style of The Hobbit is an integral part of its identity and its charm that has made it into a worldwide favorite.

Finally, while we fans can speculate about internal story revisions and unreliable narrators until the cows come home, I'd like to see someone tell me with a straight face that PJ made The Hobbit darker in order to pay tribute to Tolkien's conceit of the Red Book of Westmarch (or anything like that) rather than because he wanted to mimic his LOTR films.

Gimli is still pretty showy. Everything that isn't braided or bound is being combed at least a couple times a day, and probably tucked inside his collar when not "in use". Sailors used to carefully plait their pigtails and then roll eel skins over them (rather like giant condoms) to protect their long hair while actually working. Dwarves would have certainly needed some such strategy when working and traveling. A bushy beard near a forge is an invitation to flaming disaster!

"I'd like to see someone tell me with a straight face that PJ made The Hobbit darker in order to pay tribute to Tolkien's conceit of the Red Book of Westmarch (or anything like that) rather than because he wanted to mimic his LOTR films."

Agreed, though I think that it's more than mimicking LotR. It's telling the story to the age of his target paying audience. Milking the cash cow, so to speak. I'm OK with that. If I want a kid's version of the story I'll watch the Rankin Bass animated version.

Mmm I'm not sure the real world practicality of a beard whilst adventuring is quite so important as making dwarves which fit the descriptions of them given by Tolkien. Besides we can always assume they were addding eel oil (must know Mrs Figg!) and stuff whilst resting, after all the book doesnt mention them going to the toilet eiher but we can assume they did!

On the point of the conceit of alternate versions I dont mind the idea being used at all- but Pj is using it in reverse- he seems to be using it as an excuse to make TH more like his LotR's- rather than what seems the better option to me to use it as the excuse to make it more like the book version. Complete with talking animal and trolls.

David I can still read and enjoy Th as an adult- it hasn't rewritten itself on my shelf to mature with me but it has lost none of its charm or joy. I don't see why a film version should be any less so.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I don't see why a film version should be any less so.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Interesting points. If I recall the book correctly, some of the dwarves (I think Dain's company) had plaited beards that were tucked through their belts, and Gimli's was forked. So I suspect that Tolkien put at least some thought into the matter of what to do with long and bushy beards (probably more than the film-makers, but that's par for the course). Given the cultural importance of beards to Dwarves as well as the literary importance they play in establishing the Dwarven identity, I do miss them in the trailer.

If I'm in a good mood I can overlook the short beards, but stubbled or clean-shaven Dwarves like Fili and Kili are just too much. That's not an entirely rational outlook since both portrayals are clearly at odds with Tolkien's vision, but I guess that having no beard at all just seems like an extra slap in the face. And a lot of the hairdos still seem like goofy D&D-esque parodies to me rather than a visual style even approaching consistency with LOTR.

David H wrote:Agreed, though I think that it's more than mimicking LotR. It's telling the story to the age of his target paying audience. Milking the cash cow, so to speak.

Good point. On the one hand, I think that Jackson could make just about anything and still make tons of money given the goodwill he generated with LOTR. On the other hand, I wouldn't put it past him to still be worrying about how to maximize his paying audience.

I'm OK with that. If I want a kid's version of the story I'll watch the Rankin Bass animated version.

I had really been hoping (forlornly ) for a film version of The Hobbit that was a children's story that wasn't sickeningly juvenile to older viewers. Like the book. Or like a lot of Pixar movies. I could go on; there's actually quite a few examples of popular children's fiction with large and profitable adult fanbases. But I suspect that PJ wanted to go with the safer bet, which was aping LOTR for the action/fantasy blockbuster crowd.

David H wrote:

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I don't see why a film version should be any less so.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I'm unconvinced. Last year Toy Story 3 made over $400 million in the U.S. alone and over a billion dollars worldwide. The Star Wars movies (especially the original trilogy) are pretty kid-oriented in a lot of ways and they're the biggest movie series of all time. Harry Potter is another example, at least until the last few books. Children's fiction is actually an immensely popular genre; it just takes a talented storyteller to be able to appeal to children and adults equally. A talent that PJ probably doesn't have, hence his decision to go for darker and grittier.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:after all the book doesnt mention them going to the toilet eiher but we can assume they did!

Maybe when it's out on DVD I'll try to do an edit where ALL bodily functions are addressed.

How is a brilliant kids movie NOT a cash cow? Toy Story will be selling dvd's (or ipods or whatever) for eternity! Once PJ's cgi gets overthrown, what will be left? Stories last. Great stories last forever. Movies with poor story telling have a definite shelf life. I much prefer watching the Wizard of Oz to LotR. Which had better cgi, or whatever thery did in '33? Which had a solid story line - for kids AND adults? Sheesh!

Orwell wrote:How is a brilliant kids movie NOT a cash cow? Toy Story will be selling dvd's (or ipods or whatever) for eternity! Once PJ's cgi gets overthrown, what will be left? Stories last. Great stories last forever. Movies with poor story telling have a definite shelf life. I much prefer watching the Wizard of Oz to LotR. Which had better cgi, or whatever thery did in '33? Which had a solid story line - for kids AND adults? Sheesh!

Sure, a brilliant kid's movie from the hand of a brilliant kid's director would be brilliant... but that's not our PJ, is it? All I'm saying is he's playing to his fan base, and by doing so he's guaranteed to pay his bills at the box office and make a profit on DVD sales. Good luck to him, I say. I'm expecting the theatrical cut to disappoint me, being mostly edited for flash-and-bang like LotR's first cut, but I hope he'll put more story back into it for an extended DVD cut (I'm still hoping he follows through on a 25 year edit of LotR and that he hires Petty as an assistant editor).

But don't even get me started on Wizard of Oz. That movie is a COMPLETE BUTCHERY of L. Frank Baum's Oz series, on which I grew up. In 1939 Technicolor was even more of a novelty trick than 3D is now, and what they did to all the characters......and the plot.......and the satire.......... Like I said, don't get me started!