Hobbit Trailer looks crap

[Arphen Silverhair]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Mostly this thread is about a little humour. If you knew us, you would be able to recognise the jokes. But that's the problem with internet communication. It's also very difficult for people well versed in Tolkien's books to take a Hollywood adventure/action/gaming flick in any way as a legitimate interpretation of Tolkien. We've learnt, as Agan says, from four previous ones.

One of the things we Downers pride ourselves on, besides our knowledge of Tolkien's books, is the way we conduct discussion here. We tend to avoid simple statements of opinion and favour explanation and argument to support our positions. Sometimes we even manage to persuade each other! Or exhaust each other.

So, given that we tend to listen to each other's reasons, I want to ask you what you mean by linking to that You Tube video. What do you think it proves in terms of your argument? That others are deeply impressed? That we should follow suit also?

Simply linking to that video does little to further your point that we are full of hate. We aint'. But let my give you one possible interpretation of that video to show how it needs a bit of explanation.

It shows some fangirls giggling and excited over the trailer. And it shows three actors' response to the you tube video.

Are the fans giving any kind of argument or debate? No, they are simply going gaga over the scenes they are seeing. They seem to be thoroughly excited by what they are viewing.

Why would Jackson choose this particular video to highlight in the marketing of the second Hobbit movie? Is it a way to forestall criticism? It is a way to demonstrate who he believes his audience is? Is it a way to titilate fangirls by showing them a reaction in the actors they admire?

Why show three actors reacting to the video--and in particular, these three actors? They are all in costume, so it is not likely an unrehearsed or unscripted response, but very likely part of the publicity that the actors must engage in as part of their employment in the film. Is it a way for Jackson to suggest a Middle-earth response? Is it too cynical to regard this as a mere merchandising ploy, using fans to further the marketing strategy?

I for one could never be one of those fangirls, so the entire video does not address me as a fan of Tolkien.

Really, I'm left with the comments, if not here then from one of our recent threads, which presented two of Jackson's writing team's defense of their work: "It's in the appendices!" "It represents the spirit of Tolkien."

Those two statements beg for critical analysis, and neither one of them can bear the scrutiny for long. Critical analysis is not hate. It is the response to the films from people who know the books well.

So, tell me, why did you link to that video? Do you have another "reading" of it that would enlighten us and make us regret our initial responses to the trailer?

Me linking that Video had nothing to do with my or your opinion about the Trailer. I just thought that it was somehow sweet to see these three elves watching those hilarious, giggling girls, because I've never seen that kind of "official" video response.
Although it certainly is some form of marketing.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Arphen Silverhair

it was somehow sweet to see these three elves watching those hilarious, giggling girls, because I've never seen that kind of "official" video response.
Although it certainly is some form of marketing.

They have just been fast copying the format from the Game of Thrones who (or whose fans - I think we don't khow how far HBO-organized the initial video was) published videos of fan-reactions to the "Red wedding" - anyway then George Martin appeared on Conan's TV-show and watched the fan reactions.

Pretty much the same idea...

[Alcidas]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

They have just been fast copying the format from the Game of Thrones who (or whose fans - I think we don't khow how far HBO-organized the initial video was) published videos of fan-reactions to the "Red wedding" - anyway then George Martin appeared on Conan's TV-show and watched the fan reactions.

Pretty much the same idea...

Hmm. So its a staged video of Orlando Bloom and his co-stars, all dressed as elves, watching a staged video of a couple of fangals giggling while they watch some footage?

I suppose you can say that it is 'somehow sweet'. Like having seven spoons of sugar in your tea.

[Mithalwen]

Maybe merely demonstrating a ' mise en abyme" (literal translation not really helpful but a cultural version of the laughing cow cheesebox). Given that some advertisements are made to seem like youtube amateur efforts now it may not be surprising that this has been latched on to. My sister went to the opening ceremony of the Olympic games last year and a few weeks before she got an email from Danny Boyle saying that he would have wished his father to be at the games and inviting attendees to email picture of someone who they wouldmhave liked to have been there. So my late father was one of those shown in the memorial section. And that was touching. But Boyle wasn't selling something in the same way.

[Alcidas]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

...merely demonstrating a ' mise en abyme"...

Yes, I do agree that it is pretty abysmal...

[Mithalwen]

Well the literal meaning is pretty much the Gandalfian cast into an abyss...

[alatar]

Note that many of these same criticism aren't just about Peter Jackson's work. Below is part of a review of the new Superman movie (emphasis mine):

Originally Posted by Justin Craig

Little in this film feels natural or real, which Snyder seems to want to convey. The oversaturation of effects, which has become the norm in most blockbusters, completely overshadows any natural cinematography, which may create a schism between the audience and the film. Nolan’s “Dark Knight” trilogy was a massive success for its dark realism, and there are attempts to do that here, too, but the crew seems to have gotten a bit carried away with creating as many CGI shots as possible that all realism is lost. With Snyder, Nolan and Goyer sacrificing story for endless CGI action sequences, “Man of Steel” can be summed up by that great line Jeff Goldblum says in “Jurassic Park”: they “were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.”

Switch out the directors' names with Jackson et al, and swap Superman with Hobbit, and you have many of the posts on this thread.

And I doubt the writer is a Superman book purist...

[Inziladun]

The over-emphasis on special effects to give a sense of "being there" is one of the main reasons I have so little time for modern films. I feel that in most cases the CGI and whatnot detracts from story and acting, as it tends to monopolize the viewer's attention, as well eating up screen time.
I think that's the reason my favorite movies tend to be on the older side, as the technology didn't allow for so much flash, and acting had to take the forefront to make a film work well.

[Nerwen]

Well, I’ve said this before: people often rail against CGI and special effects in general, but they can be a very good tool if used properly. It’s when the effects become the point of the film that you run into trouble.

Also, even with all the advances of modern computer graphics, there are still some things that are better done as live action– I think studios can be a bit prone to kidding themselves about how realistic some of the work they produce looks.

[Mithalwen]

Having had anothwr look the rare glimpses of Bilbo which were about the only things I rcognised from the book save the doorstep were relatively appealing. The look on Freeman's face when he breathes clear air and sees butterflies was perfect. But it was a nanosecond in a lot of portentous extraeneous stuff. F they hadn' been so desperate to echo the LOTR films there mighthave been a jolly romp of a Bilbo focussed film there. If the trailer is representative then calling it the Hobbit might contravene trade descriptions.

Why ARE Tauriel's ears so big? Much larger than the male elves... really distracting.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

If the trailer is representative then calling it the Hobbit might contravene trade descriptions.

Happily trailers are not representative as their basic raison d'être is to catch the attention of as many - or the right kind of - people as possible. So all the trailers of action films (which the Hobbit sadly seems to be) are even more packed with action than the real films as they have to convince the wannabe audiences they will get some reaallly hard and fast speed stuff to blow their minds off... they kind of pack the thick of the action scenes into a short music video kind of burst in trailers.

[Bêthberry]

The movie Life of Pi is a superbly done adaptation of the book of the same name--and it isn't slavishly done. And even more stunning is the fact that the special effects and even the 3D support the story rather than supplanting it.

So modern technology can enhance a narrative. Just not in Jackson's hands apparently.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Happily trailers are not representative as their basic raison d'être is to catch the attention of as many - or the right kind of - people as possible. So all the trailers of action films (which the Hobbit sadly seems to be) are even more packed with action than the real films as they have to convince the wannabe audiences they will get some reaallly hard and fast speed stuff to blow their minds off... they kind of pack the thick of the action scenes into a short music video kind of burst in trailers.

I wonder if they've ever considered that such trailers can turn people off? Or have done marketing surveys to suggest that they will get more money from those who want action flicks than from those who don't?

[Tidesson]

Well, this is what happens when you opt to put a long book story into major feature films. In my opinion, it may have been better if PJ opted to make The Hobbit - even LOTR - into a miniseries. Or perhaps in George R.R. Martin's "Game of Thrones" format on HBO.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I wonder if they've ever considered that such trailers can turn people off?

They probably even know it - but consider those people a marginal matter compared to their views of the more desired audiences.

Or have done marketing surveys to suggest that they will get more money from those who want action flicks than from those who don't?

If you just check what kind of films are the blockbusters and bring in the most revenue... Now there sure are exceptions to that, but they are insecure aka. they can't be predicted. So when you are basically just making money (instead of art) you take the more safer road and rely on action and advertising.

[Mithalwen]

Yes I knowthey are after the young male demographic but isometimes there is nothing that appeals to other audiences. When I lived in Paris where you are allegedly never more than a quarter of a mile from a cinema and it was cheap and i had no telly i went to the cinema ja lot and saw nearly everything goimg if it wasnt quite my glass of miruvor it wasnt a great loss. Now with the price of petrol and parkimg and a twenty five mile roumd trip it has to really appeal. This doesn't. And I have to admit that seeing th fellowship trailer changed my mind about seeing the film. Maybe I am just gettimg old and grouchy

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Tidesson

In my opinion, it may have been better if PJ opted to make The Hobbit - even LOTR - into a miniseries. Or perhaps in George R.R. Martin's "Game of Thrones" format on HBO.

I couldn't agree more.

Just thinking about it: the LotR in six seasons (one season per book) where one season would be ten times one hour episodes!

And well, a decent director would have been needed as well...

Or to go into a full phantasy mode then: let's see the stories of Silmarillion as series - with six seasons one would get... oh, only in my dreams...

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Tidesson

Well, this is what happens when you opt to put a long book story into major feature films. In my opinion, it may have been better if PJ opted to make The Hobbit - even LOTR - into a miniseries. Or perhaps in George R.R. Martin's "Game of Thrones" format on HBO.

Forgive me as I might be getting old and my memory may be faulty, but wasn't The Hobbit a short little book that could have nicely been done in one movie? No need for a miniseries of it.

Originally Posted by Noggie

They probably even know it - but consider those people a marginal matter compared to their views of the more desired audiences.
. . . .
If you just check what kind of films are the blockbusters and bring in the most revenue... Now there sure are exceptions to that, but they are insecure aka. they can't be predicted. So when you are basically just making money (instead of art) you take the more safer road and rely on action and advertising.

See, the real problem is that those "desired audiences" just have way too much disposable income compared to the rest of us.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Well, I’ve said this before: people often rail against CGI and special effects in general, but they can be a very good tool if used properly. It’s when the effects become the point of the film that you run into trouble.

Also, even with all the advances of modern computer graphics, there are still some things that are better done as live action– I think studios can be a bit prone to kidding themselves about how realistic some of the work they produce looks.

Moviemakers seem to commonly forget that in order to tell a story people have to be at the heart of it. An endless string of flash and gimmicks may sparkle and amuse...briefly, but it is not a story.

Stories are what hook people to invest themselves in them. Sparkle and flash by themselves cannot do that because by themselves they really aren't much of anything.

Just thinking about it: the LotR in six seasons (one season per book) where one season would be ten times one hour episodes!

And we would have the added bonus of not having to worry about what will happen when the series catches up to and then passes the author in telling the story.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

The movie Life of Pi is a superbly done adaptation of the book of the same name--and it isn't slavishly done.

Note that that movie has nothing to do with mathematics or the discovery of 22/7.

I wonder if they've ever considered that such trailers can turn people off? Or have done marketing surveys to suggest that they will get more money from those who want action flicks than from those who don't?

Me guesses that the number of movie-going persons attracted by action packed trailers greatly exceeds those that aren't.

[Mithalwen]

There are other demographics with cash. The grey pound can be very strong and there have been some very successful films in the past couple of years that have benefitted. Even with the stellar cast I doubt Marigold Hotel cost many Hobbit minutes. Of course though they dont attract the peripheral merchandising tat.

The Hobbit is not a long book and i oo not know to laugh or cry when film apogists iwho defended the omissions of tne Rings (with some justification~ it is the additions I minded more) claim that the Hobbit needed expanded. Yes it isa episodic but it was designed to be. have always thought it would work best as the sort of Sunday teatime classic serial that the BBC used to do when I was a child. Now they seem to think children dont have the attention span to follow a story over several weeks. However it is still how I would wish it done..couple of chapters per shortish episode each ending on a mini cliffhanger.

[Aiwendil]

Originally Posted by Tidesson

Well, this is what happens when you opt to put a long book story into major feature films. In my opinion, it may have been better if PJ opted to make The Hobbit - even LOTR - into a miniseries. Or perhaps in George R.R. Martin's "Game of Thrones" format on HBO.

I'm with Bethberry here. The last thing we need is to give Jackson more time to fill with pointless action and new characters. The Hobbit is a short book; I'd say that the optimal length for a cinematic adaptation of it would be something like three hours. The Lord of the Rings could work better as a miniseries, though not a long one.

For The Silmarillion, on the other hand, a miniseries probably would be the optimal form of adaptation. It would be a fairly unconventional one, though - I imagine several blocks of 6-8 episodes, each telling a single story with largely its own set of characters (Flight of the Noldor, Beren & Luthien, Turin, etc.), with a few standalone episodes for things like the story of Eol and Aredhel. Perhaps a few of those standalone episodes could even be in the style of a historical documentary (e.g. The Great March, The Coming of Men into the West).

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

The look on Freeman's face when he breathes clear air and sees butterflies was perfect.

Perfect, perhaps, except that the butterflies were blue and not black. Mirkwood, by definition, is reflected by the dark denizens habitating therein (a point Tolkien referred to often). A white stag offers a color variation that is notable as a folk motif. And so, we're back to that whole subtlety thing that PJ is utterly incapable of divining.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Why ARE Tauriel's ears so big? Much larger than the male elves... really distracting.

Perhaps she got caught in a lie.

[Mithalwen]

The thing about CGI for me is that it has little magic because I have seen the making of type programs. Might appreciate the cleverness but not astounded. Now when I saw the LOTR musical and Bilbo disappeared without any blaze of light or plume of smoke..well l might as well have been a bemused Breeland peasant. I hearn an interview with the effects designer and he didn't squeak.

[Pervinca Took]

I put the LOTR musical on a par with the BBC dramatisation (possibly even higher). For slightly different reasons, perhaps, but both magical and breathtaking pieces of art.

[Mithalwen]

They are hard to compare not least because the musical was one magical and memorable night whereas I have known the Radio series for thirty years (eeeeek) and have heard it many times since, and had the privilege of getting to ask Brian Sibley about it...I think both are great adaptations within the possibilities and limitations of the media.

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

There has to be some recompense for seeing it.

And this is why we'll have Premiere Moot. Welcome one and all!

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Well, he did make a video with him, John Howe, and Alan Lee for the Tolkien Society's Return of the Ring con last summer, meant to welcome us to the event.

Meant to extend a hand to us and remind us that he'd also like to serve nitpickers of the canon.

Originally Posted by Alcidas

I suppose you can say that it is 'somehow sweet'. Like having seven spoons of sugar in your tea.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Why ARE Tauriel's ears so big? Much larger than the male elves... really distracting.

PJ said in response to Stephen Colbert that he does plan to differentiate between the Sindar and the Nandor, and a fan theory I've seen is that Tauriel's ears mark her as a Nando. I must say I prefer the Sinda ears. Which might be the only thing ever where I'm on the Sindar's side.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

I imagine several blocks of 6-8 episodes, each telling a single story with largely its own set of characters (Flight of the Noldor, Beren & Luthien, Turin, etc.), with a few standalone episodes for things like the story of Eol and Aredhel.

Well, if you insert one or two of Fëanor's sons in most episodes, they should be able to tell it's still the same story.

[Boromir88]

I liked the overall look of Mirkwood, Dol Guldur, and what I assume was Thranduil's hall. Also, Lee Pace has some intense eyebrow thing going for him, could give Hugo Weaving a run for his money.

Other than that...meh. Upon seeing Bard I thought "Why is Orlando Bloom playing the part of pirate Will Turner in The Hobbit? But then I read this thread and like Zigur's explanation better.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Aganzir

PJ said in response to Stephen Colbert that he does plan to differentiate between the Sindar and the Nandor, and a fan theory I've seen is that Tauriel's ears mark her as a Nando. I must say I prefer the Sinda ears. Which might be the only thing ever where I'm on the Sindar's side.

.

But Agan the only recorded bearded elf is Sinda. And they ar musical and like the sea and given the calibre of woman they attract they must have a lot going for them. As for Hugo V Lee wll Thranduil's get up keeps reminding me of Priscilla ....

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

But Agan the only recorded bearded elf is Sinda. And they ar musical and like the sea and given the calibre of woman they attract they must have a lot going for them. As for Hugo V Lee wll Thranduil's get up keeps reminding me of Priscilla ....

No there's Mahtan too! He's a Noldo and he grew a beard younger than Círdan. (Admittedly I wouldn't know this if I hadn't see so much fan art.) I'm not musical so that doesn't sway me, and isn't Melian the only cool woman who fell for a Sinda, or are there others I don't remember?

It's just, Beleg is literally the only Sinda whom I tolerate. And okay Mablung too, but that leaves a plenty of elves I don't like.

[Arphen Silverhair]

...how this huge Smaug will die in the movie?

I can't help but think PJ will not have him killed with just one arrow from Bard.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Aganzir

No there's Mahtan too! He's a Noldo and he grew a beard younger than Círdan. (Admittedly I wouldn't know this if I hadn't see so much fan art.) I'm not musical so that doesn't sway me, and isn't Melian the only cool woman who fell for a Sinda, or are there others I don't remember?

It's just, Beleg is literally the only Sinda whom I tolerate. And okay Mablung too, but that leaves a plenty of elves I don't like.

Celeborn the pretty boy trophy husband? Gil~galad's mother was Sinda and depending on who his Daddy was he may have had a Telerin grandmother as well. You can't hate bright eyes can you? Squeaks piteously...
As for the dragon was that meant to be a shadow or is Smaug no longer golden?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Arphen Silverhair

...how this huge Smaug will die in the movie?

I can't help but think PJ will not have him killed with just one arrow from Bard.

I'm betting on Bilbo (with Gandalf's guidance) putting two photon torpedoes in Smaug's thermal exhaust port, as, as we all know, these ports are only ray shielded.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by alatar

I'm betting on Bilbo (with Gandalf's guidance) putting two photon torpedoes in Smaug's thermal exhaust port, as, as we all know, these ports are only ray shielded.

And of course, Bard must yell "It's a trap!"

[Galadriel55]

I would bet that there won't be any dialogue between Bilbo and Smaug, but then what would be the point of Cumberbatch?

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I would bet that there won't be any dialogue between Bilbo and Smaug, but then what would be the point of Cumberbatch?

That's one of the few spots I cherish some genuine hope for some quality.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

That's one of the few spots I cherish some genuine hope for some quality.

Ah, but what about Smaug the Magnificent with a wondorous patch on his breast?

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

And of course, Bard must yell "It's a trap!"

Surely they have brought back Legolas to reprise the captain obvious role? We're familiar with "A diversion!" but last time I watched FOTR and noting all the fantastic lines given to Legolas can either be plainly seen taking place or had already been stated by someone else

"He is Aragorn son of Arathorn!"
"Have you heard nothing Lord Elrond just said! The Ring must be destroyed!"
"Orcs!"
"Goblins!"
"Crebain!"
"The Horn of Gondor!"
"Frodo and Sam have left the Eastern shore!"

Originally Posted by Mith

As for Hugo V Lee wll Thranduil's get up keeps reminding me of Priscilla ....

For some reason I couldn't stop picturing David Bowie's Goblin King...and then was waiting for him to break out in song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xAAGh-3sw0

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Arphen Silverhair

I can't help but think PJ will not have him killed with just one arrow from Bard.

I'm guessing one arrow from Kili, another from Legolas, a third from Tauriel, and finally the Black Arrow from Bard.

Also, Fili and Kili die in the Battle of Five Armies because Kili is too weak to fight after being scorched a little for staying too close to Smaug while shooting. Which he did, against everybody's wishes (although Thorin forgives him in the end, seeing as true love conquers all), because Tauriel was there and he liked her a tad too much.
Also, it was Legolas who taught Bard how to shoot, so technically he can take the credits for killing Smaug as well.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Celeborn the pretty boy trophy husband? Gil~galad's mother was Sinda and depending on who his Daddy was he may have had a Telerin grandmother as well. You can't hate bright eyes can you? Squeaks piteously...
As for the dragon was that meant to be a shadow or is Smaug no longer golden?

Ah Celeborn! Well, perhaps Sinda men were less trouble to handle, being less demanding and self centered than the Noldor and thus leaving their wife with more free time?
And too bad, you'd think there wasn't any daddy confusion among the elves, seeing as they marry for life, but apparently it isn't that simple either.

Smaug is red, right? Isn't that how Tolkien painted him?

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Aganzir

Smaug is red, right? Isn't that how Tolkien painted him?

The Hobbit. Warning: for colourblind audiences only.

And, whatever colour Tolkien drew/ described him as, he's black in the trailer. Hard to hide even from a colourblind person.

[mark12_30]

Bethberry, I'm deeply touched that you remember my fascination with Roggie' s flameproof eyeliner. But I would never have noticed it but for the guidance of Lush the Cold and Fair. I will be curious to see whether whether Smaug and Roggie share makeup artists.

As a child I entertained myself by the hour singing: Puff a dwagon wiv by a sea an frolic inna Au'um miss.

There, Tauriel, beat that. Action smaction, let's all just sit in a toasty semicircle around the dragon's nose and sing Peter, Paul and Mary songs. No?

Never mind. Too bad they won't let me bring my Mirkwood bow into the theater.