We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 73
  1. #1

    The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug (trailer)

    Haven't seen a thread for this on the site yet so here it is!

    I'm wondering who the female Elf archer is?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=fnaojlfdUbs

  2. #2
    pretty sure it's Evangeline Lilly

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1

    Tauriel

    The character is called Tauriel and she's the head of the Elven guard of Mirkwood.
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/2921e00000002bb0a/01008/signature.png]undefined[/charsig]

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    609
    A lot of the cgi in that trailer makes me sad, and there are parts I like about the trailer, and parts I don't. Especially the whole barrel fighting bit, that just seems really ridiculous. Will be interesting to see in theatres however.

    Eodread, Earendel, Isilmacil - Horizon
    Thattickles, Thangorodread - Table Smashers


  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Isilmacil View Post
    Especially the whole barrel fighting bit, that just seems really ridiculous.
    Have you read The Hobbit? It's a quite ridiculous book, overall. As opposed to Lord of the Rings, which is an intentionally epic one.

    People who expect the two to have similar feel will be sorely disappointed.
    "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,289
    Quote Originally Posted by Bezmer View Post
    Have you read The Hobbit? It's a quite ridiculous book, overall. As opposed to Lord of the Rings, which is an intentionally epic one.

    People who expect the two to have similar feel will be sorely disappointed.
    PJ has, in fact, made it look more ridiculous than the original. You might recall that from time to time he did the same to LOTR as well.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    In-game
    Posts
    3,717
    I loved the trailer, I think it is fantastic. If someone doesnt like what directions PJ is taking; he doesnt force you to watch them nor does he stop you from making your own LOTR films. That being said, I look forward to the movie
    Do you come from a land down under? Where women glow and men plunder? Can't you hear, can't you hear the thunder? You better run, you better take cover - Men at Work.
    You're welcome. Now it will fester in your head :p

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    515
    Quote Originally Posted by Isilmacil View Post
    A lot of the cgi in that trailer makes me sad, and there are parts I like about the trailer, and parts I don't. Especially the whole barrel fighting bit, that just seems really ridiculous. Will be interesting to see in theatres however.
    I think the CGI will get more polish over the next few months. I remember thinking the same thing about the CGI in the prior trailers for LOTR and the first Hobbit movie, and for the most part it was fine by the time the movies rolled out.

    With the barrel fighting, it appears a bit over the top, but if that's the worst thing about the movie, we'll be in good shape.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,289
    Quote Originally Posted by Witch0King View Post
    I loved the trailer, I think it is fantastic. If someone doesnt like what directions PJ is taking; he doesnt force you to watch them nor does he stop you from making your own LOTR films.
    PJ might not stop anyone else making LOTR movies but New Line Cinema totally would. (And if not them, then Middle-earth Enterprises and if not them, the Tolkien Estate). So, don't be so damn silly, we're stuck with his handiwork this generation so even if he naffs it up, nobody else gets a go.

  10. #10
    Out of the frying-pan into the fire, one might say.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    PJ has, in fact, made it look more ridiculous than the original. You might recall that from time to time he did the same to LOTR as well.
    Perhaps true, yes. I just wanted to point out that The Hobbit leans considerably more than LOTR on comic relief as a narrative tool. Therefore, even if this aspect is overemphasized in both The Hobbit and LOTR (which may or may not be good), one to the other the ratio is about right.
    "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,289
    Quote Originally Posted by Bezmer View Post
    Perhaps true, yes. I just wanted to point out that The Hobbit leans considerably more than LOTR on comic relief as a narrative tool. Therefore, even if this aspect is overemphasized in both The Hobbit and LOTR (which may or may not be good), one to the other the ratio is about right.
    Apart from how he's also tried to put The Hobbit fully into the same context as LOTR (which it isn't, left to itself) and that rather messes things up - it makes those goofy physics-free CGI action scenes look all the more craptastc.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,127
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Apart from how he's also tried to put The Hobbit fully into the same context as LOTR (which it isn't, left to itself) and that rather messes things up - it makes those goofy physics-free CGI action scenes look all the more craptastc.
    Im tired of your silly comments, Ill explain.

    The hobbit exists like or not within LOTR context is the same fictional world, deal with it.

    Second, No PJ took a new direction with the hobbit movies they are more fresh and depict the basics better than LOTR trilogy ever did, elves look more heroic (as they should), Im looking forward to this movie I would like to see radhruin enraged because Beornings are actually like the book skin-changers, lol seems to me you are fighting tolkien all the time.
    Last edited by Al.; Jun 11 2013 at 10:14 PM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    344
    Thank you for sharing.

    I'm going to be a bit disappointed if Gandalf and Radagast are the only ones going to DG. At first the Elves shooting at the dwarves in barrels bugged me but I'm over it already. I'm really looking forward to the movie.

    Now 2 questions....


    What did Gandalf say after Radagast said it may be a trap. I could not understand em.


    And what the heck jumped towards Gandalf towards the end of the trailer?
    Co-Founder of TEAM F. Turined R9 champ. Mashedtaters R9 Reaver
    Perma-Retired Pre SoM- R9 Hnt. R8 Reaver

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,289
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    Im tired of your silly comments, Ill explain.

    The hobbit exists like or not within LOTR context is the same fictional world, deal with it.
    It doesn't, and you just saying that won't magically make it so. Unlike LOTR, the little fairytale world of The Hobbit wasn't written to bear the weight of Tolkien's 'serious' myth-making and so there are some differences.

    Second, No PJ took a new direction with the hobbit movies they are more fresh and depict the basics better than LOTR trilogy ever did, elves look more heroic (as they should), Im looking forward to this movie I would like to see radhruin enraged because Beornings are actually like the book skin-changers, lol seems to me you are fighting tolkien all the time.
    If by 'new direction' you mean obtrusive, overused CGI and cartoon-like action scenes with no real peril (or even physics) to them, then sure but really, that's a flaw and one which a lot of people picked up on. I swear, with some of you it seems that all that CGI just makes you glaze over and start drooling into your popcorn, and then you wake up later and think it was all wonderful.

    And sorry, what Beornings? There's only Beorn at the time, genius. It's not Tolkien I'm fighting

  16. #16
    What must be remembered is that the Hobbit is a childrens book, well it starts that way and by the end seems quite serious. So it will appear to be quite heroic and at times somewhat silly.

    Additionally the film is only based on the book, I for one don't recall Legolas being in it all.... mind you it has been over 30 years since I read it

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Middle-earth
    Posts
    1,700
    I didn't like the first due to poor CGI and in my eyes terrible plot changes from the books.
    This one looks like it'll continue and increase that trend, so I will not be seeing it in the cinema.
    Pirating it is.
    [I]In the sea without lees standeth the Bird of Hermes.
    [/I][I]When all his feathers be from him gone, He standeth still here as a stone.
    Here is now both white and red, And all so the stone to quicken the dead[/I][I].
    The Bird of Hermes is my name, Eating my wings to make me tame.[/I]

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    In-game
    Posts
    3,717
    Well PJ is certainly adjusting to today's audience. He use Legolas because, well he is Legolas, who wouldnt want to see him again. The book have lacks too yes, it only tell the story from the dwarves point of view. I am guessing PJ wanted to add more meat to the bone. He love fantasy just as much as anyone else. Adding Azog was certainly a surprising move, but I like the direction it takes. It bring more attention to Thorin's life. Anyone who has read the books doesn't even need an explanation for why Radagast is there.

    People always want 100% perfection however, look at minecraft, look at its graphics. Still one of the most played games in the world. People talk so much about the CGI which I dont really know what is, but however if it wasnt done properly I certainly didnt notice any difference. I found nothing to complain about in the first movie. I have read the books multiple times, its my favorite book of all time. Yet I dont complain about Azog being there. Ive read the book, I know it in my head. I want to see what direction PJ take it. I love the characters, I love the universe, the more the better.

    There is one thing, one thing that surprised me. He actually changed the Witch King's lore, he could just have taken Khamûl, but chose Sauron's top dog instead. I don't know why, but it certainly has something to do with Gandalf/Radagast.
    Do you come from a land down under? Where women glow and men plunder? Can't you hear, can't you hear the thunder? You better run, you better take cover - Men at Work.
    You're welcome. Now it will fester in your head :p

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Unlike LOTR, the little fairytale world of The Hobbit wasn't written to bear the weight of Tolkien's 'serious' myth-making and so there are some differences.
    Understated (for emphasis I think), but the undeniable crux of the matter.

    Tolkien's Hobbit is the story of a foolish, young person who goes on an adventure. Aimed at children, it's main thematic thrust is of growing up - Bilbo leaves his insular little world to experience the larger one. On his way, he comes across things foreign to himself, both good and evil. He is forced to come to terms with his own capabilities and limits, becomes overconfident, and learns a sad lesson in the end when his own actions, in part, lead to tragedy. He comes to a new realization of himself and returns home a changed and wiser hobbit.

    Though taking place in the same fictional world, one could say that it's milieu is that of a "merry adventure" as opposed to a the "mythic adventure" of LOTR. Jackson's milieu, on the other hand, and in opposition to both of these, is "action adventure", a genre, mostly evident in film, defined by the kinds of things that Rad mentions (frenetic pacing, non-stop action etc.). It is narrative driven, not character driven.

    In LOTR, Jackson (for the most part) succeeds despite his action adventure overlay. It never quite crosses the threshold of becoming something that it is not. The essence of Tolkien remains in a melange with Jackson's filmmaking that is necessary in any translation from the written word to the screen. The fear, and not an irrational one given the first installment, is that the essence of the Hobbit becomes predominantly more Jackson and less Tolkien.

    The great irony here is that poor Bilbo is lost. He emerges from the Shire pre-formed, a veritable Odysseus of Middle-Earth, outwitting the Trolls himself and saving Thorin through might of arms - the standard action hero of the movies. After viewing the new trailer for the first time, I could barely recall Bilbo even appearing. What I did see was that one of Bilbo's great triumphs, his effecting the escape of the Dwarves from the Elf-King, overwhelmed by another physics-defying, never happened in the book, action sequence.

    Liking Jackson more than Tolkien is not a crime. Let's just be honest and admit that this franchise has "jumped the watcher".

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Middle-earth
    Posts
    1,700
    Quote Originally Posted by Witch0King View Post
    There is one thing, one thing that surprised me. He actually changed the Witch King's lore, he could just have taken Khamûl, but chose Sauron's top dog instead. I don't know why, but it certainly has something to do with Gandalf/Radagast.
    Is there any reason why this surprised you, but not when he changed Azog's lore, Thranduil's lore, SauroNecromancer's or any of the others?
    Is it perhaps because PJ had already established the WK lore in LoTR and changed it for these movies? (and he can't do that with Azog/Thranduil/SauroNecro because they weren't in his LoTR)
    [I]In the sea without lees standeth the Bird of Hermes.
    [/I][I]When all his feathers be from him gone, He standeth still here as a stone.
    Here is now both white and red, And all so the stone to quicken the dead[/I][I].
    The Bird of Hermes is my name, Eating my wings to make me tame.[/I]

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,127
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    It doesn't, and you just saying that won't magically make it so. Unlike LOTR, the little fairytale world of The Hobbit wasn't written to bear the weight of Tolkien's 'serious' myth-making and so there are some differences.
    Ok want to play hard ball, lets do it, give me a single quote from Tolkien or Chirstopher Tolkien saying the hobbit is a different universe and not linked to the events of LOTR, I double dare you.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,289
    Quote Originally Posted by Witch0King View Post
    Well PJ is certainly adjusting to today's audience. He use Legolas because, well he is Legolas, who wouldnt want to see him again. The book have lacks too yes, it only tell the story from the dwarves point of view. I am guessing PJ wanted to add more meat to the bone. He love fantasy just as much as anyone else. Adding Azog was certainly a surprising move, but I like the direction it takes. It bring more attention to Thorin's life. Anyone who has read the books doesn't even need an explanation for why Radagast is there.
    Don't get me wrong, I actually approve of the principle of cameos for LOTR characters. Within the retrospective continuity Legolas belongs in Mirkwood, after all, and it doesn't hurt the plot to include him. PJ could have gone further and had Estel and Gilraen living in Rivendell. (Arwen was off living with Auntie Gladdy in Lorien, however). Nothing wrong with including Radagast either, in principle. (I imagined him more as a pointy-hatted Dr Dolittle - I knew we were in for some nonsense as soon as I saw it was Sylvester McCoy playing him),

    People always want 100% perfection however, look at minecraft, look at its graphics. Still one of the most played games in the world. People talk so much about the CGI which I dont really know what is, but however if it wasnt done properly I certainly didnt notice any difference. I found nothing to complain about in the first movie. I have read the books multiple times, its my favorite book of all time. Yet I dont complain about Azog being there. Ive read the book, I know it in my head. I want to see what direction PJ take it. I love the characters, I love the universe, the more the better.
    We're not talking about a lack of 100% perfection being a problem or any such unfair expectation, but instead an odd lack of attention to realistic detail - for example, the way Dwarves or Goblins can be batted up in the air like it's a cartoon, and in the case of the Dwarves they're apparently none the worse for wear when thumped by Trolls - whereas in the fight with the Cave Troll in the movie of FOTR, there was obvious peril from the thing, that anybody it landed a solid hit on would be left very much the worse for wear. So that's one decided oddity, and then there's the extreme lack of believable physics in falls even by action movie standards.

    As for Azog - the book has a ready-made villain in the form of Bolg, Azog's son. They could have him had him wounded in the Battle of Azanulbizar but surviving, and having a burning desire for revenge against the Dwarves for having killed his father. As for what direction it's being taken in, come on: Azog as shown could not be a more two-dimensional villain and does nothing to define Thorin as a character, He leaves me cold, again odd given how memorable Lurtz was (not bad for a wholly invented character with limited screen time, but that wonderful sneer he favoured the wounded Boromir with spoke volumes). I can't see anything interesting in the other characters either, because they've been dumbed down. (Like having Bilbo turn action hero to rescue Thorin, screwing up the character development something awful).

    There is one thing, one thing that surprised me. He actually changed the Witch King's lore, he could just have taken Khamûl, but chose Sauron's top dog instead. I don't know why, but it certainly has something to do with Gandalf/Radagast.
    And he's changed it into some weaksauce generic fantasy. A magically sealed tomb that can't ever be opened, but he gets out anyway? Boy, never heard that one before, It is, of course, that good old trope Sealed Evil in a Can. Plus there's the usual abuse of the term 'Necromancer', so now we have Sauron apparently bringing the WiKi back from the dead - again, generic fantasy. (As Tolkien had it, the WiKi was neither living nor dead, as a way around the otherwise inevitable fate of Men - as soon as he became properly dead, he was toast and wouldn't be coming back). And I don't know why you're wondering why it's the WiKi - he's the obvious candidate because he's the only one of the Ring-wraiths who's a clearly recognisable individual to movie-goers, the others being pretty much interchangeable (much as in the books, to be fair).

  23. #23

    In the name of fairness

    In the spirit of being fair, I'm going to make a few criticisms and the same amount of good points.
    The good points first:
    1) I liked how the Wood-Elves' halls looked. Perhaps a little more Lothlorien-like than I personally imagined, but I think they definitely look Elvish and, well.... yeah.
    2) A nice touch to add the huge Dwarf statue on the LM (I assume Thror or some other such Dwarf) as it makes Erebor seem that much more of a Dwarf holding.
    3) I liked the brief glance we got of the spiders' den, it looked sufficiently gloomy and creepy to me (I have a fear of spiders, oh dear)
    4) Lake town looked very nice too! Again it isn't how I personally pictured it, but I think its a nice interpretation (I'm not saying how I saw it in my mind was right of course)

    And now the criticisms, which are largely due to my love of the original texts of tolkein:

    1) Thranduil (I think that is how you spell his name? I don't have the Hobbit handy right now) in the film knows what the Dwarves are on their way to do. By contrast, in the book he is holding the (supposedly) because they wont tell him where they are going and why. So, from the little I saw on the trailer, it seems that PJ is blowing up the age-old elf/dwarf feud?

    2) There was a brief part on the trailer, where the Dwarves were within a building and there was some beast trying to break down the door. Now from what I saw, it looked like a bear..... Beorn maybe? If so, I would be rather annoyed, I don't see any need to make him act like that towards the Dwarves, particularly as he sees them in his own hoe. I will keep up my hope that it wasn't him though

    3) From that trailer, I got the impression that Bilbo's encounters with Smaug are going to be a fair bit different from the books. In the books he merely stands on the edge of the huge treasure piles, yet in the trailer he seemed to be actually running through the piles of coins etc. and attempting to hide from Smaug.... which is even more strange when you consider he has the ring.

    Okayy, I had another but I've forgotten what it was now, but if I remember it I'll get back to it.
    But overall, there are always going to be people who hate it and people who love it. Personally, I will wait for the full release to say which I am.
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/202240000002126b0/01005/signature.png]undefined[/charsig]

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,289
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    Ok want to play hard ball, lets do it, give me a single quote from Tolkien or Chirstopher Tolkien saying the hobbit is a different universe and not linked to the events of LOTR, I double dare you.
    I said it's not in the exact same context and I mean it. The Hobbit was written first, as a fairy-tale for children, and scarcely revised thereafter. It was not written for compatibility with Tolkien's myth-making, as can readily be told from the inclusion of hobbits (something just invented), Gollum (who was initially no more than he seems, an odd little creature living in a cave), Dwarves with names stolen from the Voluspa and of course Gandalf, too (name likewise stolen from Old Norse, and basically just a fairytale wizard at the time, hence the pointy hat). Oh, and fairy-tale Goblins borrowed from George MacDonald's The Princess and the Goblin, and equally fairy-tale Dwarves (wearing hoods just like the Seven Dwarves, mining coal when they're down on their luck, and having had at one time a preposterously huge pile of gold hidden away). Fairy-tale giants, too, and all those little anachronisms in the Shire, all of it.

    LOTR (not that it was called that to begin with) was very nearly a straight sequel to The Hobbit featuring a mysterious hobbit called Trotter, and with Treebeard as an evil giant who hold Gandalf captive. If it had stayed that way I have no doubt we would not be having this conversation, as Tolkien got writer's block. It was only when he had the inspiration to turn it into something serious, to have none other than Sauron as 'the Lord of the Rings', and to establish a place for it within his 'serious' work that he really got going. The trouble is that it was way too late to do the same to The Hobbit - he would have liked to have rewritten it entirely, if he could, and had to restrain himself from doing so. And so, to this day, anyone who chooses to pay attention can clearly see the joins between The Hobbit and LOTR, the places where the two don't quite marry up.

    As for a quote:

    "I don’t much approve of The Hobbit myself, preferring my own mythology (which is just touched on) with its consistent nomenclature – Elrond, Gondolin and Esgaroth have escaped out of it – and organized history, to this rabble of Eddaic-named dwarves out of Volüspá, newfangled hobbits and gollums (invented in an idle hour) and Anglo-Saxon runes.”

    -Tolkien, from a letter he wrote in 1937

    Go read HoME. Go read his published letters. Wake me up when you've learned something.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,127
    You are incorrect,

    First You took that quote out of context, the main quote of tolkien is this one:

    In a 1951 letter to Milton Waldman, Tolkien writes about his intentions to create a "body of more or less connected legend"

    "The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama".—The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, #131

    Futher more evidence that LOTR and Hobbit are linked is:

    Both Hobbit and LOTR are part of the Legendarium
    LOTR is sequel to the popular hobbit.
    Tolkien expanded on the events of the hobbit to create LOTR, the magical ring becomes the one ring, the sword of bilbo was forged in gondolin and so on.

    Also tolkien did revisions to the Hobbit to fit LOTR lore.

    Tolkien substantially revised The Hobbit's text describing Bilbo's dealings with Gollum in order to blend the story better into what The Lord of the Rings had become. This revision became the second edition, published in 1951 in both UK and American editions. Slight corrections to the text have appeared in the third (1966) and fourth editions (1978).

 

 
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload