New trailer for 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey'

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

The drowsy-voice spoken quote sounds a bit like when she was in the Two Towers or RotK for no apparent purpose having mind-conversations with Elrond which didn't really make any sense (as in, anybody else could have been saying that there). "Mithrandir, why the halfling?" is already stuck in my head and will probably be a quote repeated on some fitting silly occassions even if I decide to go and see the whole movie. Which I am somehow beginning to doubt after this one.

The drowsy (dozy?) Elf speech always irritates me. At least we don't see them enough to make it a big issue.

And I already hate Merry and Pippin. Sorry, I meant Fili and Kili. Because of their accents. I don't know how native English-speakers see this, but that accent just annoys me when it's used on purpose... and here it certainly is. Agan of course already likes them, not only because of how they look, but because they sound like Jon Snow on top of that.

They are Northern, so they have Northern accents! It's perfectly correct! I've noticed other Dwarves who sound Irish/Scots and that's acceptable too. Posh accents have no place in Middle-earth. Note that even Gandalf still sounds a bit Northern and Bilbo isn't posh either. Crikey, a film cast with actors who sounded like Tolkien would need to have subtitles because everyone would be sat there going "Eh? What?" And posh Dwarves would be more wrong than all the wrong things put together from all the Tolkien adaptations

Really, the whole thing, whether it's faithful or divergent, whether it gets picked apart because they use the wrong colour of beard, hangs on the acting. It's this that takes you on the journey and I cannot see anyone who is miscast (apart from Hugo Weaving with his disco eyebrows as Elrond), in fact the cast could not be more perfect. I know I was right all those years in agitating for Martin Freeman as Bilbo, my favourite character in the whole legendarium. We know Ian McKellen is right, and there are other obvious winners. The one who I think is going to sneak up and steal all the scenes is James Nesbitt.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

True, but the problem is that PJ's idea of "humor" seems incompatible with the subject book. He ought to be aiming for this, but I'm getting more a feeling of this.

The problem with comedy is everyone has different tastes. Some will want Python-esque, but let's be honest, nobody has ever pulled off Python-esque except the Pythons themselves, and even then not in any way consistently. Python was funny because it traded on contemporary morals and politics and got laughs out of being shocking/smutty and The Hobbit is not the place for that in any way. What it can do is have silly and bizarre moments, which are something Tolkien specialised in. And with rabbit sleds in the mix, it sounds like that is going to happen.

Strikes me though that we have criticism that the films are going to be too dark and epic, but on the other hand, any hints of humour or light-heartedness get criticised. So from this I deduce that nothing will satisfy some as you cannot have it both ways

[MCRmyGirl4eva]

I loved it. My question is: Will the elves be singing their silly little welcoming songs?

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Strikes me though that we have criticism that the films are going to be too dark and epic, but on the other hand, any hints of humour or light-heartedness get criticised. So from this I deduce that nothing will satisfy some as you cannot have it both ways

You're probably right, there. You can't out-Tolkien Tolkien, after all.

It'd be nice to see PJ and Co. show that they respect the source material a bit more, though. I just get tired of the silly, unnecessary add-ons like the cringe-inducing Galadriel and Gandalf scene where she touches his hair, or the aforementioned dwarven head-butt.

[Mithalwen]

But he is having it both ways... that was like two completely different films edited together.

[Morthoron]

I was shocked to learn that the giant troll that fell on the Dwarves in that one "comic" scene was, in fact, not a troll at all! It seems that lumbering behemoth is...the Great Goblin! What the fudgesicle?

Ummm...correct me if I am wrong (I am getting quite addle-pated as I get older), but from anyone's reading of The Hobbit, did you picture the Great Goblin that huge? What does Sauron need Uruk-hai for if he can breed leviathan orcs?

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I was shocked to learn that the giant troll that fell on the Dwarves in that one "comic" scene was, in fact, not a troll at all! It seems that lumbering behemoth is...the Great Goblin! What the fudgesicle?

That is surprising! But looking back on the trailer I notice that he does seem to be wearing a crown. I would make some flimsy attempt to justify this decision by referring to "Boldog" or something like that but to be honest I'm pretty resigned to PJ and co's rather wacky interpretation of the source material. I'm hoping that if I go in there not expecting The Hobbit but rather something inspired by it then I won't find it frustrating. I'm really trying to spoil it for myself as much as possible so that I don't end up being disappointed.
Personally I think it looks like it could still be a fun adventure film if viewed from a certain perspective. For me the main issue I have with the films and (and some elements of their fandom) is that to my mind too much credit is given to Peter Jackson and not enough to Professor Tolkien himself.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Thorin is absolutely awesome. He is not really the way I imagine him, but I think (judging of course only from the trailers) he has the potential of becoming the character type of movie Boromir

They are similar, aren't they? Noble characters with a hubristic flaw who both lose their lives to gain redemption. I only wish Thorin was a little older-looking; I'm not sure it's common knowledge that he was the oldest of the company, even a little older than Balin. I also noticed from the earlier trailer that Óin and Glóin's names are again to be pronounced to rhyme with "coin" - shouldn't it sound more like "Owin" and "Glowin"? That's what I was taught in my Old Norse course at uni at least...
I also noticed that, in accordance with rumours that have been floating around, we seem to see nothing past the events of Chapter VI "Out of the Frying-Pan into the Fire" which suggests to me that the film may end as early as before Beorn! If this is borne out (Beorn out? No?) I think it's going to feel absolutely torturous as a trilogy - escaping Mirkwood seemed as good a place as any to split the story back when it was only two films.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by davem

Let's not get too precious about TH - its a children's book, & I doubt PJ will manage to outdo Tolkien's own Tra-la-la-ly's - or worse:

That is perfectly fine. I love the Hobbit and for me, with all the "childishness", it is a part of the universe as any other. But PJ is using different sort of humor, not childish, but he's using the "modern" stupid humor of all the current movies with animated children, talking cars, robots and Jar Jars. The stupid American movie humor. (Sorry Americans. But that's just how it is. Not that nowadays also others wouldn't do that, sadly.)

Originally Posted by davem

Radagast looks quite interesting - reminds me of accounts of Shamans the world over - & when TH was written neither Gandalf nor Radagast were Ainur. When Gandalf became one during the writing of LotR then so must his 'cousin', I'm much more comfortable with what I've seen of TH than with much of the LotR films. TH was a novel even Tolkien himself was a bit sniffy about:

But in PJ's universe Gandalf already is established that way, and Radagast should be as well. Of course, strictly speaking, in PJ's universe we never heard anything about Ainur, but basically we know of Saruman and Gandalf being those powerful wizards, Gandalf even with this "transcendent" dimension to him, so that should be taken into account when talking about Radagast too...

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

They are Northern, so they have Northern accents! It's perfectly correct! I've noticed other Dwarves who sound Irish/Scots and that's acceptable too. Posh accents have no place in Middle-earth. Note that even Gandalf still sounds a bit Northern and Bilbo isn't posh either. Crikey, a film cast with actors who sounded like Tolkien would need to have subtitles because everyone would be sat there going "Eh? What?" And posh Dwarves would be more wrong than all the wrong things put together from all the Tolkien adaptations

Look, I am not a native English speaker, so of course my choice is based only on my aesthetic impression And it is simply so that I get the impression very often some people are pretending to have some accent while they in fact don't and it sounds terrible. On top of that, this particular accent is not aesthetically pleasant, just like Pippin's isn't, if you ask me. Or not in the way he does it. It's annoying.

The problem with comedy is everyone has different tastes. Some will want Python-esque, but let's be honest, nobody has ever pulled off Python-esque except the Pythons themselves, and even then not in any way consistently. Python was funny because it traded on contemporary morals and politics and got laughs out of being shocking/smutty and The Hobbit is not the place for that in any way. What it can do is have silly and bizarre moments, which are something Tolkien specialised in. And with rabbit sleds in the mix, it sounds like that is going to happen.

Strikes me though that we have criticism that the films are going to be too dark and epic, but on the other hand, any hints of humour or light-heartedness get criticised. So from this I deduce that nothing will satisfy some as you cannot have it both ways

Well exactly! I think it is too extreme in both directions. Which is exactly wrong. And again, most of these epic fantasy/SF/thriller/whatever movies nowadays are like that, sadly. In one scene, you have the characters pretending how dead serious they all are, over-the-top sad music as somebody tells how their parents were murdered when he was five, and the next minute, a fat man eating crisps falls on top of their head from upstairs, telling some unlikely joke.

I think, in fact, with the Hobbit, the combination of the darkness behind might actually be good. Tolkien, after all, does work with all these "deeper, darker, older things in the background" (Moria, Durin, Necromancer - as he says himself). But the counterweight to this should not be Obelix falling from a tree, but some light, British humor. And the fairytale-elements should remain just that, fairytale. Fairytale borders the "unlikely", like Beorn's animals talking, but it isn't supposed to be outright stupid. "Weird" or "silly" does not equal "stupid". And again, PJ - no eye for nuances, the oldest and biggest problem of his.

Besides, a rabbit-sled is certainly enslaving the poor animals and forcing them to do hard labor Something Radagast would never do.

I'm only wondering, that just occured to me, whether PJ isn't trying to "make up for missing Tom Bombadil". Because this rabbit-sled approach seems more like that. Valar save us if that is his motive behind all this...

Originally Posted by MCRmyGirl4eva

I loved it. My question is: Will the elves be singing their silly little welcoming songs?

I'm afraid not. Which is a pity. Well, not in PJ's way of showing it, anyway. But I would welcome that ten times more than ten Obelixes.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

But he is having it both ways... that was like two completely different films edited together.

Mith, you seem to be reading my mind on these issues. That is exactly the feeling I'm getting after this trailer.

Originally Posted by Zigûr

I also noticed that, in accordance with rumours that have been floating around, we seem to see nothing past the events of Chapter VI "Out of the Frying-Pan into the Fire" which suggests to me that the film may end as early as before Beorn! If this is borne out (Beorn out? No?) I think it's going to feel absolutely torturous as a trilogy - escaping Mirkwood seemed as good a place as any to split the story back when it was only two films.

Indeed! That was also something I haven't noticed until Lommy pointed that out to me, there seems to be Gandalf on top of a burning tree. So that's pretty neat (I hope he really gets to throw different-colored burning cones - heck, that is an opportunity for action scene with super CGI effects, and a justified one, so they'd better make the best of that!). As for Beorn, it seems that Radagast will be taking his place. Which is fine with me. (Or would be, if Radagast wasn't such a pitiful specimen... like I said.)

It really seems that we're going to end now somewhere either in front of Mirkwood or at the beginning of it... it really makes one wonder what remains for the future. I mean, sure there is still lot to happen, but most of the "dynamic" stuff happens before reaching Lake-Town. Agh, unless we are going to have hour and half long battle for Helm's... I mean, Erebor. Which is surely possible. No, not possible, likely. Well...

A cool moment to end the movie would be "Where are you? Balin! Dwalin! Thorin Oakenshield!" - after getting lost in Mirkwood. Bilbo alone in the darkness, fade out... certainly a way to make the audience expect the following one.

Query: Are we going to see "lesser spawn of Ungoliant", as in, is PJ going to bring us some homage to his "green dying person is being carefully wrapped in spider webs" scene? I'd expect that. (That's not negative, for once. I dislike the portrayal of it, personally - though half of it was because of Frodo making his drooling show of it again - but PJ's going to disappoint me greatly if he does not bring some "nudge nudge you have seen this before" moment.)

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

As for Beorn, it seems that Radagast will be taking his place. Which is fine with me. (Or would be, if Radagast wasn't such a pitiful specimen... like I said.)

As far as I know Beorn is going to turn up at some point though - the beginning of the second film perhaps, if they are indeed ending it with the Eagles. The role has been cast: a Swedish actor whose work I am not personally familiar with, Mikael Persbrandt. Also, having watched the production videos they showed some footage of the set of his house, very oversized with giant furniture and what not. As I recall Richard Armitage said in the video that it was one of his favourite sets.
As for Radagast, I just don't see why he needs to be given a role personally, except to sell action figures perhaps. Given that the evidence we get of him suggests that he was a somewhat nervous person and that by the time of The Lord of the Rings he appears to have practically gone into hiding, especially by the time of the Council when he couldn't be found, I don't see how he has a place even in the story of the White Council and the Necromancer. Perhaps they wanted a canonical character to help bloat the story, and his adventure with Gandalf and the "Ringwraith tomb" or whatever it is will be used to explain his absence from the films of The Lord of the Rings. It just seems strange to me given that there's not even evidence for him being a member of the White Council. I always speculated that he almost certainly was but eventually just stopped turning up to meetings.
The "Ringwraith tomb" rumour, incidentally, is really the most irritating thing I've heard the whole time. It would have been almost impossible to convey within the film, but it always frustrated me that the very existence of Arnor (and Angmar) was completely omitted from the films of The Lord of the Rings and now it sounds like it's being taken to pad out these films and warped into something quite alien to Professor Tolkien's own conception.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

But in PJ's universe Gandalf already is established that way, and Radagast should be as well. Of course, strictly speaking, in PJ's universe we never heard anything about Ainur, but basically we know of Saruman and Gandalf being those powerful wizards, Gandalf even with this "transcendent" dimension to him, so that should be taken into account when talking about Radagast too...

To be fair, Gandalf the Grey was established as a slightly batty, scruffy chap in PJ's films, it was only when he became Gandalf the White that he became 'noble/angelic' etc. And it looks like Gandalf the Grey will again be that eccentric old duffer with mucky robes and a messy beard in The Hobbit so it's not that strange that Radagast is like the Swampy of Mirkwood. And I quite like these trampy old wizards, as davem says, they are more like the shamen of the woods than nice, shiny wizards and that's more interesting to me.

Look, I am not a native English speaker, so of course my choice is based only on my aesthetic impression And it is simply so that I get the impression very often some people are pretending to have some accent while they in fact don't and it sounds terrible. On top of that, this particular accent is not aesthetically pleasant, just like Pippin's isn't, if you ask me. Or not in the way he does it. It's annoying.

Billy Boyd's accent was his native one! I'm not sure about the other chap but Aidan Turner is Irish - he can 'do' accents very well though. And we've only heard a snippet of it so far so there's nowt to criticise. Northern accents are the most aesthetically pleasing of all, and the most correct, posh ones being a French aberration

I think, in fact, with the Hobbit, the combination of the darkness behind might actually be good. Tolkien, after all, does work with all these "deeper, darker, older things in the background" (Moria, Durin, Necromancer - as he says himself). But the counterweight to this should not be Obelix falling from a tree, but some light, British humor. And the fairytale-elements should remain just that, fairytale. Fairytale borders the "unlikely", like Beorn's animals talking, but it isn't supposed to be outright stupid. "Weird" or "silly" does not equal "stupid". And again, PJ - no eye for nuances, the oldest and biggest problem of his.

Besides, a rabbit-sled is certainly enslaving the poor animals and forcing them to do hard labor Something Radagast would never do.

British humour isn't 'light', that's just the stuff that gets exported. The majority of British humour is very harsh, even quite cruel and crude. Slapstick is essentially violence, and then you have satire and black humour, plenty of toilet humour and trading on embarrassment. Some of the comedy that's on British TV would make people in other countries have palpitations, it's so offensive. A big naked goblin being flung at dwarves is very British. I'm not saying this is a good or a bad thing! But it's nothing out of the ordinary. It's a bit League of Gentlemen, actually...

This is why I can handle the idea of the rabbit sled. My first thought was the killer rabbit in The Holy Grail - another strand of British humour is absurdity. Jackson does use crude comedy like belching etc in his films but that's another strong feature of British humour. "More tea, vicar?!"

I'm not sure where the idea of a Jar Jar Binks character being in the films is coming from though. I'm tempted to think that if the Tra-la-la-lally-ing is left in then it will indeed be corny.