Second Hobbit Trailer [SPOILERS!!!!]

[axordil]

Obviously I never had a that kind of reaction to a scene. That doesn't mean PJ was incapable of making a scene that WOULD generate that kind of reaction in me. He came perilously close when he almost had Sauron fighting Aragorn at the Black Gate, as that would have violated *my* idea of the fundamental nature of LOTR. Thankfully he was talked out of it.

I've never thought PJ's issue was that he didn't "get" LOTR. I think his issue has always been a filmmaker's "hey, it would look/feel cooler if we did this instead of that." Some of those calls work, some don't, and some are a matter of taste.

Holby--Thinking about the "o" shot--the problem as I see it is that what has been seen cannot be unseen. Going back to TH after reading LOTR results in a different reading than doing them in chronological order. Same applies to the films. The assumption going in has to be that everyone watching knows what Bilbo's ring is. Given that, staying true to the treatment it gets in TH is going to require some way of explaining: "hey, why don't they know what the ring does?" So even station keeping in terms of the ring is going to require something that's extra-textual.

[Erunáme]

I need to reread the Hobbit as this trailer has illustrated to me that I've forgotten a lot of it! To be fair, I only have read it the once.

I'm a bit worried about PJ's gags (dwarf tossing, skull avalanche type stuff) but given the Hobbit is lighter in nature, I don't think this will be such a problem. I did find the fact that some of the dwarves looked normal, yet others somewhat fake with prosthetics to bother me a bit. But what most bothered me is how shots seemed made for 3D. I'm not a fan of 3D movies and I dislike the new style of setting up shots to exploit 3D. It just comes off as fake or too forced for me.

[axordil]

So I saw the 3-D trailer last night. Again, few of the effects are really in-your-face, the closest being the scene with the stone giants in the mountains. A few times the cutting made plane-of-focus adjustments difficult, such that I was conscious of the layering (the shot where Thorin and Co. are running toward the camera and pull up with him in front was the most obvious); one hopes they avoid that in the real thing.

One thing I found interesting is that it wasn't appreciably darker than the 2-D, implying they are filtering down the 2-D to match or just making sure that doesn't crop up at all...the garish colors from the Mirkwood said they said were for 3-D balancing come to mind.

The crystal dubis in Rivendell looks a tad less plastic in 3-D, since you get a feeling of thickness to it.

But overall, it's subtly done. There really aren't a lot of "off the screen" effects--the push is away, behind the screen, for the most part.

[Primula Baggins]

I like the sound of that. The 3D in Avatar was similar, used mostly for depth and height rather than things leaping out at you, and I thought the effect was beautiful.

[Pearly Di]

I was prepared for far more PJ improvement versus "trusting Tolkien" this time around, with the DG and WC subplots, but things like the apparent "humour" of the Great Goblin falling on top of the Dwarves..."You got to be joking!"

I loved that. Seriously, what's wrong with it? In an adaptation of a children's book where you have trolls with deliberately Cockney accents ...

PJ enjoys slapstick now and then, we know that. The Hobbit is probably more suited to his sense of humour than LotR ...

Legolas's line to Gimli in TTT, "Would you like me to fetch you a box?" also made me laugh, for what it's worth.

PJ was attempting adaptation at some level, but I have always had the feeling that his interpretation focused on sets, props and design details rather than plot focus, tone of the story or message.

I have to respectfully disagree, Holby, since I find PJ's LotR remarkably cohesive, given the scope and the grandeur of the material he was adapting. I think the plot focus, tone and message of PJ's LotR is pretty darned dandy. Of course Tolkien is the master.

The exposition in PJ's LotR is actually a darn sight better than, say, the lack of exposition in the Harry Potter films. As much as I enjoy the HP films, there is hardly any attempt to explain stuff to the non-HP audience. This differs greatly from PJ's LotR. Maybe that's why HP fans are constantly telling me that PJ's LotR is a lot more 'faithful' than their franchise! I tell them right back they are not quite correct, LOL, but perhaps I've simply been misunderstanding their POV! (Having said that, there is a peculiar inability in HP fandom to recognise that their film franchise is, in fact, fiendishly faithful ... )

I've been so-so about this project for years, probably as a reaction to the intensity of my LotR experience! But ... predictably ...

Everything about this trailer makes me want to see The Hobbit!

Tolkien is awesome and always superior, but PJ's films are hugely enjoyable, hugely immersive and are far better than we could have hoped for. Of course there are some things he could have done differently. There are some things that still make me go 'ack'. But, on the whole = a win situation.

[kzer_za]

I agree there are some parts where PJ is just indulging his excesses in an un-Tolkienian way and some story changes that were ill-advised. Not all of the particularly unpopular changes bother me (I like movie Aragorn and I don't even mind Filmamir too much), but some do (Denethor, post-Fellowship Gimli). Still, as a whole I feel like he hits more than he misses, and the parts that I don't like don't keep me from enjoying the movie as a whole.

And even when Peter Jackson annoys me, Shore/Howe/Lee/Weta sometimes help soften it and make it more palatable.

[Elentári]

I was prepared for far more PJ improvement versus "trusting Tolkien" this time around, with the DG and WC subplots, but things like the apparent "humour" of the Great Goblin falling on top of the Dwarves..."You got to be joking!"

I loved that. Seriously, what's wrong with it? In an adaptation of a children's book where you have trolls with deliberately Cockney accents ...

PJ enjoys slapstick now and then, we know that. The Hobbit is probably more suited to his sense of humour than LotR ...

...I suppose the simple answer is that it's PJ's slapstick, in-your-face humour rather than Tolkien's gentler humour. Yes, you can argue that the Trolls are cartoonish, and the references to Bombur's size lends itself to visual jokes, as does Bilbo's bobbing and fussing, middle-aged, set-in-his ways personality, but often Tolkien's humour is more literary/intellectual - which, admittedly, probably works better on the page than translated to film in some cases. I wonder what percentage of the general audience is going to appreciate the "Good Morning" sequence between Bilbo and Gandalf, for example?

Likewise, I find the clips from "Riddles in the Dark" not sitting completely comfortably with me in terms of the dialogue and tone. I'm not just referring to Gollum's hyper-dual-personality... Bilbo's shrug and "fair enough" gets a laugh but in the book Bilbo was far more nervous and jittery. For that matter, anyone else picked up on the fact that they have changed things here? In the book Gollum suggests the game of riddles, but in the trailer alternate ending we see Bilbo coming up with the idea..

Legolas's line to Gimli in TTT, "Would you like me to fetch you a box?" also made me laugh, for what it's worth.

Yes, that does raise a smile with me too, and although it's not Tolkien, it is not so jarring, because it works in the context of showing how comfortable the relationship between Legolas and Gimli has become by that stage...that the Dwarf can accept a gentle ribbing from the Elf.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I was prepared for far more PJ improvement versus "trusting Tolkien" this time around, with the DG and WC subplots, but things like the apparent "humour" of the Great Goblin falling on top of the Dwarves..."You got to be joking!"

I loved that. Seriously, what's wrong with it? In an adaptation of a children's book where you have trolls with deliberately Cockney accents ...

PJ enjoys slapstick now and then, we know that. The Hobbit is probably more suited to his sense of humour than LotR ...

...I suppose the simple answer is that it's PJ's slapstick, in-your-face humour rather than Tolkien's gentler humour. Yes, you can argue that the Trolls are cartoonish, and the references to Bombur's size lends itself to visual jokes, as does Bilbo's bobbing and fussing, middle-aged, set-in-his ways personality, but often Tolkien's humour is more literary/intellectual - which, admittedly, probably works better on the page than translated to film in some cases. I wonder what percentage of the general audience is going to appreciate the "Good Morning" sequence between Bilbo and Gandalf, for example?

Likewise, I find the clips from "Riddles in the Dark" not sitting completely comfortably with me in terms of the dialogue and tone. I'm not just referring to Gollum's hyper-dual-personality... Bilbo's shrug and "fair enough" gets a laugh but in the book Bilbo was far more nervous and jittery. For that matter, anyone else picked up on the fact that they have changed things here? In the book Gollum suggests the game of riddles, but in the trailer alternate ending we see Bilbo coming up with the idea..

Legolas's line to Gimli in TTT, "Would you like me to fetch you a box?" also made me laugh, for what it's worth.

Yes, that does raise a smile with me too, and although it's not Tolkien, it is not so jarring, because it works in the context of showing how comfortable the relationship between Legolas and Gimli has become by that stage...that the Dwarf can accept a gentle ribbing from the Elf.

I could have written this post, word for word, on each and every point.

Edited to add: However, do we know that the Good Morning sequence will even be in? I would be terribly disappointed if it is not, but I suspect that at best it will be a severely PJ-ized version.

[halplm]

I highly doubt the "good morning" scene will be there/work as intended. That would be shocking

[Alatar]

Way to cover your bases there Hal! Even if it is in, you can still claim it didn't "work as intended"!

[Pearly Di]

. And whatever 'as intended' means. . Seriously: even if the film scene isn't word-for-word, it can still convey the right mood and tone.

Elen, you are of course quite right about Tolkien's more intellectual sense of humour. He's certainly more ... refined ... than dear PJ.

But I was never that offended or put out by PJ's jolliness. There are a few 'ouchy' moments, sure, but only a few.

[Elentári]

Yes, sorry, I didn't mean to suggest we know it is in, I should have said "what percentage of the audience would appreciate the sequence...should it be included"