• The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Trailer #2!
    67 replies, posted
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViUNm30ADEA[/media] Alternate trailer endings: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxSpGd5OUsg[/media]
amazing
Looking forward to this so much.
What a nice touch that they made Smeagol look younger and more healthy in this than in LOTR, makes so much more sense that way.
I'm in the process of watching LOTR trilogy right now. Really can't wait for this.
Who's that at 1:21?
holy shit looks amazing,i can't wait.
[QUOTE=Benjimon007;37723955]Who's that at 1:21?[/QUOTE] Beorn, I think. Actually, I'm not too sure. Beorn's supposed to be much more thickset iirc.
[QUOTE=Benjimon007;37723955]Who's that at 1:21?[/QUOTE] He's called Beorn. [sp] He's that was a protector of the animals at the edge of the forest (mirkwood) and can turn into a bear. He provides shelter for one of the nights after they leave the goblin mines.[/sp] dammit
I swear some of that CGI looks worse than Lord of the Rings. Strange.
Ian McKellen is such a boss. Why don't more old people walk around with such a beard.
The official site has 4 alternate trailer endings: [url]http://www.thehobbit.com/index.html[/url] [QUOTE=CoolCorky;37723986]Beorn, I think. Actually, I'm not too sure. Beorn's supposed to be much more thickset iirc.[/QUOTE] Radagast the Brown.
Whats up with the Apple logo on the bottom right?
I fucking love The Hobbit and LOTR (books and films) ... but I have serious reservations for these films. The main gripe is turning it into a trilogy, let's not beat around the bush here.. but The Hobbit storyline is extremely thin compared to that of LOTR. They pretty much tacked on a third film last minute to make more money, which is disappointing. Dont get me wrong, I'll be thrilled to return to Middle Earth, and I think it looks stunning... but I'm worried about lack of substance. Plus I'm not sure if it really gels well with the existing LOTR movies, stuff like that little "funny" clip after the title at the end just doesn't feel right IMO. I cant imagine myself crying like a fucking baby like I did at some parts of LOTR, or getting goosebumps. This one feels like much more of a big blockbuster, and not in a good way.
I like it and all, but I still think there is something off about the way the dwarves look.
[QUOTE=Scotchair;37724405]I fucking love The Hobbit and LOTR (books and films) ... but I have serious reservations for these films. The main gripe is turning it into a trilogy, let's not beat around the bush here.. but The Hobbit storyline is extremely thin compared to that of LOTR. They pretty much tacked on a third film last minute to make more money, which is disappointing. Dont get me wrong, I'll be thrilled to return to Middle Earth, and I think it looks stunning... but I'm worried about lack of substance. Plus I'm not sure if it really gels well with the existing LOTR movies, stuff like that little "funny" clip after the title at the end just doesn't feel right IMO. I cant imagine myself crying like a fucking baby like I did at some parts of LOTR, or getting goosebumps. This one feels like much more of a big blockbuster, and not in a good way.[/QUOTE] If you knew anything of the troubles they have had with The Hobbit, you wouldn't be saying that. It ain't for the money. It's just Peter Jackson who was certain he could make good use of a third movie. And he is quite persistent.
[QUOTE=Scotchair;37724405]I fucking love The Hobbit and LOTR (books and films) ... but I have serious reservations for these films. The main gripe is turning it into a trilogy, let's not beat around the bush here.. but The Hobbit storyline is extremely thin compared to that of LOTR. They pretty much tacked on a third film last minute to make more money, which is disappointing. Dont get me wrong, I'll be thrilled to return to Middle Earth, and I think it looks stunning... but I'm worried about lack of substance. Plus I'm not sure if it really gels well with the existing LOTR movies, stuff like that little "funny" clip after the title at the end just doesn't feel right IMO. I cant imagine myself crying like a fucking baby like I did at some parts of LOTR, or getting goosebumps. This one feels like much more of a big blockbuster, and not in a good way.[/QUOTE] I'm hoping that they take advantage of having anywhere up to 9 hours between the three films to cover the entire book. They could have fit LotOR into 9 films properly and actually made the whole story, without missing out key parts such as the Sacking of the Shire, the Barrow Wights and Tom Bombadil.
I think with 3 movies for one book, they'll probably be able to do the book almost word for word. Should be a great series. Honestly though I think it's gonna be hard to make since the lord of the rings trilogy has left such huge expectations.
God damn it I want to see Smaug.
[QUOTE=LordApocca;37724565]If you knew anything of the troubles they have had with The Hobbit, you wouldn't be saying that. It ain't for the money. It's just Peter Jackson who was certain he could make good use of a third movie. And he is quite persistent.[/QUOTE] If he can do 1300 pages in 3 films, he can do 320 in 2 (plus a little extra to fill the gap between films) 2 films is pushing it, 3 is completely unnecessary.
[QUOTE=Gump;37724472]I like it and all, but I still think there is something off about the way the dwarves look.[/QUOTE] some of them look too human like.
[QUOTE=Scotchair;37724787]If he can do 1300 pages in 3 films, he can do 320 in 2 (plus a little extra to fill the gap between films) 2 films is pushing it, 3 is completely unnecessary.[/QUOTE] Are you completely unaware of the extra material they are putting into the films?
[QUOTE=Scotchair;37724787]If he can do 1300 pages in 3 films, he can do 320 in 2 (plus a little extra to fill the gap between films) 2 films is pushing it, 3 is completely unnecessary.[/QUOTE] The films tell a lot more of the overall story than in the book. You know that bit where Gandalf disappears for like half the book? The films will show where he goes and what he does.
[QUOTE=LordApocca;37724080]I swear some of that CGI looks worse than Lord of the Rings. Strange.[/QUOTE] I'm not seeing that at all. How long has it been since you last watched the trilogy? Every time I go back and watch all the CGI looks dated, though less so in RotK. [editline]19th September 2012[/editline] It is certainly all a lot more vivid and colorful in the Hobbit, and I think that lends a less realistic feel, but I don't think it makes the CGI itself worse.
Easy on the split toning sliders, Peter.
They still got plenty of time to polish it up. I'm pretty sure the film is already in post-production.
I wonder how it'll look at 48fps, I like the fluid motion but it might not be fitting for this kind of movie.
Best place to see it: [url]http://www.thehobbit.com/index.html#content=trailer-playing&media=trailer_1[/url] Make sure your brower has html5 capability, doesn't work with opera.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;37725766]I'm not seeing that at all. How long has it been since you last watched the trilogy? Every time I go back and watch all the CGI looks dated, though less so in RotK. [editline]19th September 2012[/editline] It is certainly all a lot more vivid and colorful in the Hobbit, and I think that lends a less realistic feel, but I don't think it makes the CGI itself worse.[/QUOTE] It's funny. The only thing that gives away the LOTR effects is that they kind of... float on the frame. Otherwise, it looks very good. All of the Minas Tirith area is a Miniature in a giant effects shot area. Every time you spot a bad effect, you miss 70 good ones.
Looks great, will definitely give it a watch.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.