Hobbit 2 Movie Trailer

First official trailer released today in the UK.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idp6wjqG674

I'm torn between "Yay, the movie is only a few more months away!" and "What did they do to the story? Who are those characters?"

Looks like fun! Thanks.

What's Legolas doing in there? But still, Legolas *squee*.

Legolas is the Elf King's son. I expected (well, I was hoping) to see him.

The only character I didn't know from The Hobbit and LotR was the female elf. I assume the guy lecturing them on waking the beast is Bard the Bowman.

Yes, Bard is the "young Inigo Montoya" from the clip. He's all sorts of pretty. The female elf is a Jackson invention named Tauriel, who is "the head of the elven guard" which I think has implications for a certain scene with drunken elves and keys and a burglar, at the very least.

Have to say I'm not amazingly impressed with the dragon so far - hope that they're still working on it - it seemed unfinished somehow.

Also, while I understand that the barrel scene needs to be open barrels for movie-making/visual purposes, I'm a little miffed that it's been turned into a chase scene instead of an endurance scene.

Did I just see Orlando Bloom playing two different characters? He is Legolas of course, but I swear I saw a William Turner look-alike in there as well saying "he will kill us all."

Edit: Ok, so it is a William Turner look alike, but apparently the actor is Luke Evans.
http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/first-look-at-orlando-bloom-and-luke-evans-in-the-h...

6 - Looked like it to me, too!

I thought he looked like the same person, too.

I was also unimpressed with the dragon.

@8: Ditto, and ditto.

Smaug looks like a puppet. I'm sure they'll tweak it.

Even at first viewing of part 1, I found the battle scenes with snarling, slavering adversaries overlong and repetitive. Watching it again on DVD with my son, I asked him to fast-forward through them. I wouldn't call those scenes "action"--they seemed more like those little "animated" flip booklets of yore, looping endlessly through the same exchange of blows. I hope the second and third films aren't like that, but perhaps it's the only way to turn a short novel into three long films.

No criticisms from me. I just don't take movies that seriously. If they hold the spirit of the book and give me eye candy of both people and scenery, and some thrills, I'm OK with it. :)

These girls obviously are more invested in it than I am:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52ktuLmy8pM&feature=youtu.be

And it's pretty funny to watch these actors watching the above clip:

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=vb.141884481557&type=2

The second one I could only find on facebook, so I'm not sure you non-FB users will be able to see the link. Also, the link seems to take you to Peter Jackson's video page on FB, it's the one with the picture of the same girls in the first link here.

Those are great clips, MrsLee. Thanks for sharing them. :o)

Wonderful thread thanks. I am looking forward to the movie.

13: MrsLee, what a find! That was really fun. Thank you!

#6:  I was wondering why Orlando Bloom was also playing a human in this movie

This, however, annoys me:

As for why Legolas is included in the film even though he isn't in the books, Peter Jackson tells Entertainment Weekly, "He's [elven king] Thranduil's son, and Thranduil is one of the characters in The Hobbit, and because elves are immortal it makes sense Legolas would be part of the sequence in the Woodland Realm." This quote is a good example of how Jackson went about attempting to expand The Hobbit over the course of three films instead of just one considering the book is only one-fifth as large as J.R.R. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy.

I have no problem with The Hobbit being expanded to three films.  Three movies was still too dense for the LotR trilogy!

the dragon did look fake. I'm crossing my fingers that he changes it!!

#17: how did you get a face to appear on your message??

I'm SOOOO excited for this movie to comeout in December and then the third one to come out next July!!!! I was also wondering why Legolas was in there. Not that I have anything against him being in there! I love Legolas (and Orlando Bloom for that matter) and nearly screamed when I saw him!!

MrsLee @13: I watched part of the video but my sound wasn't working and it kept freezing up. I'll watch it later though....

#19:  Go visit your HELP!!! topic.  DeusExLibrus posted the link that might assist you.

Hi emerald_dragon, your name is surely appropriate for this group! Welcome.

Thanks MrsLee!! :D I love fantasy so i love dragons and my favorite color is emerald!

#22: I looked but I'm still kinda confused.... Could you copy the link on here?

I heard that one of the characters in The Hobbit has cancer, but I don't know who it is. Does anyone know who it is?

Billy Connolly. Prostate cancer, but it seems to be in remission. Sad news regardless, he's a great guy, and a good actor. The really sad news is that when he was getting worked up for the cancer, he ALSO found out he has Parkinson's, which is much worse in my opinion.

Oddly enough, he's not the only one on the cast with cancer - Ian McKellen has had prostate cancer for quite a few years now, and he's still going strong.

Thanks RowanTribe! I was wondering who it was. Do you know who Billy Connolly plays? I agree Parkinson's is bad. Someone in my family has it.

I never knew Ian McKellen had cancer! I never would have guessed either.
Thanks again!

We haven't seen him yet - he's Dain Ironfoot the II, who'll maybe be in this second one? I have no idea how they're breaking things up, but he's leading one of the armies in the Battle of 5 Armies at the foot of Smaug's mountain, so we may not see him til #3. If we can trust Connolly's words, he's got tattoos and a mohawk. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A1in_II_Ironfoot is the wiki article on the character from the books - no official words yet on what his backstory is going to be for the Jackson-altered-history version for the film.

Thanks. That would be cool to see him with tattoos and a mohawk! :D

Newest Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug trailer up today! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbOEknbi4gQ

I'm really liking Smaug's voice, and makeup artists everywhere are amazed at what 12 years of makeup and photoshop can do for Orlando Bloom's face. :)

...step into the liiiiiiiight...

I liked the new trailer.

haven't seen it yet! :( can't wait though!!!

Sadly the more I read and see of this film the less and less and less interested in seeing it I get. If it weren't for Smaug being in it I doubt I would even bother. And if he gets that wrong...

>34 Kellswitch: I think I'll just watch this one as an action film on its own terms, and separate from the book. Less stressful for me that way ... ;)

Plus, Lee Pace!

>31 RowanTribe: Mournful Broadway makeup artists want to know how to transfer the technology: Orlando Bloom as Romeo in 2013

Edited: sentence structure correction

just watched it lasr night!!!! can't wait!!! Smaug's voice is pretty cool. the character i'm looking forward to the most is Tauriel. what about you guys? who (or what) do you want to see the most?
#34-35 I usually watch the movies first and then read the book. I just got into Tolkien last year (surprisingly!) and haven't read all the books. I haven't finished reading the Hobbit yet; i stopped where the first movie stopped pretty much.

>36 emerald_dragon: Smaug: Cumberbatch has such a perfect villainous voice--timbrous and then he lowers it even more to enunciate the caddishness. Plus, it's sibilant here, which is extra awesome. And the contrast of the bright gold treasure with the dark cavern looks cool in the trailer.

I'm a recent Tolkien convert, too. I actually saw the LotR films before I read the books. In fact, I saw the theatrical versions and thought the movies were just so-so. But then I did a marathon viewing session of the extended films and was enthralled.

It works best for me to view film adaptations of books as separate and standing (or falling) on their own. But I like your in-tandem Hobbit method, too.

Hope I'm not the only one disgusted by the fact that the Hobbit is being milked out to 3 films with added characters that never appeared in the book. Not to mention the fact that the third film is essentially being made up out of whole cloth by these movie folks to bridge the gap between it and LOTR trilogy. Shameless money grubbing whores.

>35 LibraryPerilous: I tried that with the first movie...it didn't help. Though I will admit the actors for the dwarves and Martin Freeman do help. A lot.

>36 emerald_dragon: not reading the books before you see Jackson's version is probably a very good idea. Less heart wrenching.

All complaints aside, I know I will go see it, even just for Smaug...and Richard Armitage ;O)

>39 Kellswitch: Eye candy for the holiday season. Wise way to see it. ;)

Speaking of holiday Tolkien releases, that reminds me of a little New York moviegoer's tale:

Christmas Day, 2003, the Regal Cinemas* theater at Union Square, a long, slow-moving line for LotR: RotK
The usual big city-ish exasperated sighs, impatient tapping of toes, exchanges of eye rolls with strangers

Patrons, to a last person, were taking extra time at the windows.

As I inched closer to the tills, I heard grumbling sounds from the patrons at the windows. Someone turned to me, shrugged, and asked, "What's taking the extra time?" All around us, other patrons were doing the same thing: querying each other--in a ticket line in Manhattan.

Finally, I was next to pay. There was an inaudible conversation between the clerk and the patron in front of me. Suddenly, the customer, an older gentleman in a trench coat that had flapped open, flung something at the girl and shouted, "Merry Christmas to you, too!" and stormed off.

I got to the window, my crisp $10 bill in hand, and requested my ticket. The clerk said, "That'll be $10.25, please." Yup, the price of tickets had gone up from $10 to $10.25 just in time for the movie. Regulars had been digging for change while at the window because the markup hadn't been posted yet.

At the concession stand, everyone was laughing and joking with each other about it (also unusual): "Can you believe the bums? Merry Christmas to the Scrooges!" Only in New York. I so miss those days.

*It might have still been called United Artists at that time. Same parent company, anyway.

Love the Hobbit story, but I have no trouble separating the movie from the book and enjoying it for the visual adventure it is. No, it doesn't follow the book exactly, Tolkien, bless his heart could be quite long-winded and detailed, which in my eyes is great for a book, that's why I read them frequently, but it doesn't do for a movie. Which is why I watch and love the movies. These movies put all the settings, clothes, food, styles in my head in a lovely way, and so round out my reading of the books. Also, I love to see the creativity of other minds over the same works I love. In other words, I can't wait to see the movie!

#37 Thanks! the reason i got into Tolkien was because my cousin told me to watch the movies.

#41 Agreed! i can see why peoeple don't like it to be made into three movies but i think Peter Jackson has done a pretty good job so far (details aside) and can't wait until they all come out. for movies based on books, i like to putt the book aside and just enjoy the movie for how it is. sometimes, just for fun, i will compare it to the book.
but all that aside i can't wait for Kili, Bilbo, Smaug, Thorin, Legolas

>41 MrsLee:, 42 Plus, art is commerce--and always has been. It's disingenuous of any artist offering their work to the public to claim money isn't a factor. Kudos to Jackson for admitting he wants to make a blockbuster, I say--and for thinking about which parts of the book lend themselves to that.

Sure, the book stands on its own. But, a film isn't a book--visual media is different territory by far. My method is to ask myself, "Does this part work with the rest of the film?"

I also agree with you that's it is nice to see someone else's rendering of a work you love. I paint my own pictures when I'm reading, so it's interesting to compare another reader's visions to mine.

And I will even admit there are a few cases where I've enjoyed a filmed interpretation more than its literary source material. The Thin Man and Like Water for Chocolate come to mind.

#43 yes! it's fun to see the art and costumes. the special effects are fun too but only if they work and aren't cheesy. it all makes the story come alive in its own way.

While I loved LOTR, I found the first Hobbit to be kind of draggy and overly long. I hope the next one is better.

I don't expect a movie to completely parallel a book, even with the best of intentions you just can't. But for every change that Jackson implements that works, there are several that fail horribly.
Especially when they are ones he made up himself.

As for the first Hobbit movie I sort of enjoyed it but there were way to many parts where I was either bored out of my mind or rolling my eyes and the stupidity of it.

>45 Morphidae:, 46 Draggy is a good word for it. I remember slouching quite a bit in my seat at certain parts. I also remember being annoyed because I wanted a refill on my Diet Coke. Every time I thought I was safe to step out during a lull, some explosion or other would attract my attention. I sat through half of the film with an empty soda cup--which, in my movie going world, never happens and almost is as annoying as missing the previews.

>46 Kellswitch: I agree that his changes work less in the Hobbit than they did in LotR, which ties in with #38's dismay at the tie-in with LotR that The Hobbit is attempting. Jackson is pressing more than a little, probably--especially after all the drama over his directorship.

>46 Kellswitch: Yeah, I remember asking my husband in the middle of one part, "Is this boring or is it me?" and he agreed it was boring.

Warning: Both links contain Gravity plot spoilers.

This series of amusing tweets re: Gravity reminded me of this thread's discussion on staying faithful to a text v. injecting plot points for commercial reasons.

Bad Astronomy's Phil Plait also reviewed Gravity and reached the conclusion that the errors, while not meaningless, were trumped big time by the film's overall coolness.

A couple of his quotes jumped out: "The plot ... does rely on some pivotal science boo-boos, but ... sacrifices have to be made sometimes for the sake of the movie itself—without them, there’s no movie at all. And I’m far more willing to be forgiving when it’s clear a huge effort was made to get as much right as possible."

And: "without these plot points, we’d have no movie. It’s fun to think about afterward, but during the movie I’m OK with it."

I think what makes The Hobbit more frustrating for many Tolkien fans is that Jackson interjected a lot of extraneous stuff that might not have been necessary to make a successful film, and they were kind of hard to ignore during the movie.

What do you think @Kellswitch?

Has anyone seen Gravity yet, especially in 3-D?

My biggest issue with the first Hobbit film is that Bilbo who is a very reluctant adventurer and a bit of a coward in the book is turned into some sort of action hero in the film, it is just extremely silly.

A close second is the enormous amount of "action/pursuit scenes" all of which are far to long making a booooring film.

diana.n It's not only that his additions were not necessary to make a successful film, but that they actively detract from the film. He had a complete story all ready, shoehorning in a completely different story, and tone, just weakens the whole and the poorly stitched seams show through painfully.

Also, I get the strong feeling he doesn't really care about the dwarves as much as he does the elves and he couldn't bring himself to tell a story where they didn't figure prominently, even if he had to make it all up.

Again I think he wanted to film his story in the Middle Earth sandbox and The Hobbit was the only way he could get to do that.

I was on twitter and I found out that there will be an official dicussion with Peter Jackson and the cast about the Hobbit coming up.I don't know how to get the picture on here, but I'll put it up as my profile picture temporarily if anyone wants to see it.

New sneak peek at The Desolation of Smaug...
thehobbitblog

I don't know if this link will work for everyone, especially those who don't do Facebook, but this is the song which will be at the end of the credits for the second movie, and it makes me cry every time I hear it. It is I See Fire, by Ed Sheeran, I've never heard of him, but now I have to go look up his music. Apparently, they had him come to NZ, watch the movie, then he immediately went into a room by himself and wrote the song. His impressions of his feelings from watching the movie.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=200046586849043

Dang, nice tone out of the violin since it was his first time playing one.

Just re read the introduction to The Fellowship of the Ring after the book caught my eye & have a trivia question. Quick, how many rings were made in all - including the "one to rule them all". Extra credit for whom the rings were made for ;-)

From memory:

9 for moral men doomed to die
5 for dwarf lords in their halls of stone
3 for elves
1 ring to rule them all
--
18?

#57 Much better than I would have done! It just struck me as a good trivia question. ;-) Spoiler below image, did some editing for anyone who still wants to guess.




20 total by my count.

Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.