Here it is.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Awesome, I still don't see how they are going to make three movies out of this, but at least it looks great.Sajo7
It's not just based on the 1 Hobbit book - they added a ton of stuff for the LOTR appendices and the Silmarillion that wasn't mentioned in the original Hobbit book, but that had events that occurred at the same time as the Hobbit, as well as flashback to other historial Middle-Earth events related to the Ring lore and the lore of the rise of the "Necromancer, aka Sauron".
Plus, you got Gandalf's wizard-bro Radagast and probably some "Good Saruman" stuff that all preceded the LOTR stuff.
[QUOTE="Sajo7"]Awesome, I still don't see how they are going to make three movies out of this, but at least it looks great.Netherscourge
It's not just based on the 1 Hobbit book - they added a ton of stuff for the LOTR appendices and the Silmarillion that wasn't mentioned in the original Hobbit book, but that had events that occurred at the same time as the Hobbit, as well as flashback to other historial Middle-Earth events related to the Ring lore and the lore of the rise of the "Necromancer".
I hope we get to see what Gandalf is doing [spoiler] when he leaves them to with the Elves against Sauron! [/spoiler][QUOTE="Sajo7"]Awesome, I still don't see how they are going to make three movies out of this, but at least it looks great.Netherscourge
It's not just based on the 1 Hobbit book - they added a ton of stuff for the LOTR appendices and the Silmarillion that wasn't mentioned in the original Hobbit book, but that had events that occurred at the same time as the Hobbit, as well as flashback to other historial Middle-Earth events related to the Ring lore and the lore of the rise of the "Necromancer, aka Sauron".
Plus, you got Gandalf's brother Radagast and probably some "Good Saruman" stuff that all preceded the LOTR stuff.
I didn't know about the extra stuff. Now that I do I think it's gonna be even greater than expected IMO.
Those ugly black bird-spies from the LOTR were originally given to Saruman from Radagast to aid against Sauron, back when Saruman was still a good guy.
Then, Saruman turned traitor and used them to track down the Fellowship in LOTR.
There's a whole story right there, between Radagast and Saruman they could add to the Hobbit movie.
(Or maybe the 10 hour long Extended Edition they'll sell years later LOL)
[QUOTE="Sajo7"]Awesome, I still don't see how they are going to make three movies out of this, but at least it looks great.Netherscourge
It's not just based on the 1 Hobbit book - they added a ton of stuff for the LOTR appendices and the Silmarillion that wasn't mentioned in the original Hobbit book, but that had events that occurred at the same time as the Hobbit, as well as flashback to other historial Middle-Earth events related to the Ring lore and the lore of the rise of the "Necromancer, aka Sauron".
Plus, you got Gandalf's wizard-bro Radagast and probably some "Good Saruman" stuff that all preceded the LOTR stuff.
Yeah that is why two movies made sense to me. A trilogy just concerns me because I think they are going to but an awful lot of Sauron/Ring foreshadowing in when the Hobbit wasn't really about that. For the epicness, the Hobbit is still a fairly lighthearted story. I'm just concerned we are going to get Mordor levels of darkness and corruption, when that belongs to LOTR. I don't need another LOTR.[QUOTE="Netherscourge"][QUOTE="Sajo7"]Awesome, I still don't see how they are going to make three movies out of this, but at least it looks great.Sajo7
It's not just based on the 1 Hobbit book - they added a ton of stuff for the LOTR appendices and the Silmarillion that wasn't mentioned in the original Hobbit book, but that had events that occurred at the same time as the Hobbit, as well as flashback to other historial Middle-Earth events related to the Ring lore and the lore of the rise of the "Necromancer, aka Sauron".
Plus, you got Gandalf's wizard-bro Radagast and probably some "Good Saruman" stuff that all preceded the LOTR stuff.
Yeah that is why two movies made sense to me. A trilogy just concerns me because I think they are going to but an awful lot of Sauron/Ring foreshadowing in when the Hobbit wasn't really about that. For the epicness, the Hobbit is still a fairly lighthearted story. I'm just concerned we are going to get Mordor levels of darkness and corruption, when that belongs to LOTR. I don't need another LOTR.The stuff with Smaug vs. Lake Town and then the Battle of 5 Armies wasn't exactly lighthearted...
And everything in Gollum's cave was FAR from lighthearted.
The Hobbitt has some pretty dark sequences in it. The only really lighthearted stuff was in the beginning when they all assembled at Bilbo's house.
[QUOTE="Netherscourge"][QUOTE="Sajo7"]Awesome, I still don't see how they are going to make three movies out of this, but at least it looks great.Sajo7
It's not just based on the 1 Hobbit book - they added a ton of stuff for the LOTR appendices and the Silmarillion that wasn't mentioned in the original Hobbit book, but that had events that occurred at the same time as the Hobbit, as well as flashback to other historial Middle-Earth events related to the Ring lore and the lore of the rise of the "Necromancer, aka Sauron".
Plus, you got Gandalf's wizard-bro Radagast and probably some "Good Saruman" stuff that all preceded the LOTR stuff.
Yeah that is why two movies made sense to me. A trilogy just concerns me because I think they are going to but an awful lot of Sauron/Ring foreshadowing in when the Hobbit wasn't really about that. For the epicness, the Hobbit is still a fairly lighthearted story. I'm just concerned we are going to get Mordor levels of darkness and corruption, when that belongs to LOTR. I don't need another LOTR.The stuff with Smaug vs. Lake Town and then the Battle of 5 Armies wasn't exactly lighthearted...
And everything in Gollum's cave was FAR from lighthearted.
The Hobbitt has some pretty dark sequences in it. The only really lighthearted stuff was in the beginning when they all assembled at Bilbo's house.
I think the problem with the idea of the 3 films is not really the fact there isnt strictly enough in the book to make 3 films, its more the story in the book and how its delivered is maybe more of a single film.
Peter jackson has already said he wants to explore more of the lore and extra books that surround the hobbit. I personally think the film will be better than the book. So far from what I have read the hobbit has been the weaker of the 3 books i have read.. although the two towers and the ent part is horrible in the book, just drags on and on.
Anyway I think the film will be pretty awesome, however I am not sure the story itself is as grand as the LOTR and this will be more of a techinical showcase that the previous films.
Wow, it looks great. I was expecting a lot of this trailer to be repeated footage from the other trailer but that was pretty much all new. My body wasn't entirely ready.
Looks OK, but I cant say I am as excited for this as I was for the LOTR movies. Still cant believe they stretched the hobbit into 3 films.:?
[QUOTE="Sajo7"]Awesome, I still don't see how they are going to make three movies out of this, but at least it looks great.Netherscourge
It's not just based on the 1 Hobbit book - they added a ton of stuff for the LOTR appendices and the Silmarillion that wasn't mentioned in the original Hobbit book, but that had events that occurred at the same time as the Hobbit, as well as flashback to other historial Middle-Earth events related to the Ring lore and the lore of the rise of the "Necromancer, aka Sauron".
Plus, you got Gandalf's wizard-bro Radagast and probably some "Good Saruman" stuff that all preceded the LOTR stuff.
true, and it's looking good. Only thing is that it's got cameos from lord of the rings, and I know it's weird to argue against cameos, but they aren't in the hobbit. In fact according to the timeline of the books, some of them (like legolas) aren't even around yet.[QUOTE="Allicrombie"]Looks great, but since its now three movies, we're not going to see any hint of Smaug or the Lonely Mountain til 2014 at the earliest.sune_Gem
For someone like me who hasn't read the book, it's more so about trying to avoid spoilers untill 2014...
Second movie is called the Desolation of Smaug and comes out in 2013... They probably won't kill him in that one, but he will atleast be "hinted at". Almost certainly going to see him in 2013.Looks great, but since its now three movies, we're not going to see any hint of Smaug or the Lonely Mountain til 2014 at the earliest.Allicrombie
Maybe not, part 2 is called the Desolation of Smaug and that comes out Dec. 2013
Part 3 is There and Back Again, and that is coming out in July 2014
[QUOTE="Sajo7"]Yeah that is why two movies made sense to me. A trilogy just concerns me because I think they are going to but an awful lot of Sauron/Ring foreshadowing in when the Hobbit wasn't really about that. For the epicness, the Hobbit is still a fairly lighthearted story. I'm just concerned we are going to get Mordor levels of darkness and corruption, when that belongs to LOTR. I don't need another LOTR.Netherscourge
The stuff with Smaug vs. Lake Town and then the Battle of 5 Armies wasn't exactly lighthearted...
And everything in Gollum's cave was FAR from lighthearted.
The Hobbitt has some pretty dark sequences in it. The only really lighthearted stuff was in the beginning when they all assembled at Bilbo's house.
Plenty of lighter adventures have dark sequences. Star Wars can get pretty dark but that is generally accepted as a lighr hearted epic. LOTR dealt with all of goodness being eradicated, and the main character slowly becoming corrupted. Bilbo comes out pretty much unscathed, and the whole affair is remembered fondly, compared to Frodo's experience which emotionally scars him.Hard to hold onto most of my doubts about the film after this new trailer and its alternate endings, but doubts are still there. I still worry about the frame rate, as well as just the overall tone of the film. The story here just doesn't feel quite as "epic" as the original trilogy, which wouldn't be an issue if not for the fact that Peter Jackson seems to want to stretch it out longer than it needs to be.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment