Be Excellent To Each Other

Trailer is now out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... 0k3kHtyoqc

Detail on the dwarfs beards is incorrect and there's slapstick comedy which takes away from the seriousness of their task. Shows a real lack of effort on the director's part, and I, for one, won't be watching. Instead, I'll be watching the 1977 version in protest at these gross inaccuracies.

I just can't stand Martin Freeman, he is always cast as a likeable everyman but he seems more like an unbearably smug tosser.

I did a little squee at my desk. I love the Hobbit and Freeman.

There are two guys opposite me diligently working through dusty old tomes of family history.

I'd gladly kill them both to be able to view this trailer now, instead of having to wait for home.

Freeman's not bad, and I've been proved wrong quite a bit lately in bemoaning casting choices. Stephen Merchant in my computer game? Boo! BOO say I oh wait he's quite good.

Anyway, imagine if Gervais played Bilbo.

Hobbit (book) is even more boring and rubbish than LotR (book). Hope they've taken a chainsaw to it, might make it watchable.

Nah, I enjoyed reading the Hobbit, it's a great adventure that gets going much more quickly than LotR (which I've never summoned the will to get through).

When did it become "The Unexpected Journey"?

Not made:
The Hobbit: An Expected Journey
Ch 1 Bilbo goes to work
Ch 2 Bilbo goes home
Ch 3 Bilbo takes Frodo to football practice
Ch 4 While attending the ancient shopping haven of Tesco, Bilbo received a text message from his old wizard friend, Gandalf: "Cud u plz pick me up sum pipe bacca? Chz. Gndlf."

THE END.

It's actually called "There And Back Again", isn't it?

Oh, wait - they've called part II There and Back Again. So I guess they needed to make up a name for part I.

Nah, the Hobbit is in large print and aimed at children. I reckon even someone like you could read it and understand what's going on.

Shouldn't it be:
Part 1 "There...."
Part 2: "... and Back Again"?

And the first chapter is called "An Unexpected Party" so it sorta fits

I like The Hobbit. It's pleasant fun, though lacking in narrative drive and wot-not.

"Hey Bilbo! Fancy finding some treasure?"
"Okay."
"Oo-er."
"Hurrah! Treasure!"
The End

It's no George Macdonald's Princess and the Goblin, that's for sure. But the riddles in the dark bit is tremendous, as is the spiders in the trees bit. And the entire Smaug vs. Laketown. Yup, lots of memorable scenes, has The Hobbit. And what's wrong with that?

Spoilers Pete! God!

The titanic sinks.

Whyyyy?!?!

Hmm, I'm looking forward to the HyperBluRay LOTR and Hobbit Hyper Ultra Extended Directors Cut Collection Box in 2015. Now that'll make a good weekend at home.

Splitting it into two films?

Money grabbing cunts.

But there's so much story to tell! Be thankful they didn't split LOTR into nine.

Which, actually, if they made it in a post-Harry Potter world, they probably would've.

The second film is already on the DVD, you need to pay a further £9.99 to access it.

I'm expecting it to be roughly as good as the LOTR trilogy. So, rather good.

I can't believe it's taken a decade since the Fellowship came out, though.

/edit Watched it! Hair-on-arms-standy-uppy-joy-time!

I'm quite sure a lot of this is 'well we did well with the last one so lets pad this one out a bit' , however I do think there is a lot of big set piece scenes in The Hobbit which would work well given the proper time (i wonder where they are going to make the split - Mirkwood ? , the escape from the Misty Mountains ?)

They have also said they will cover more of the side story and how this links into LOTR (and as this means that we have Christopher Lee at least making an appearance then i can forgive them)

Quite so, they're doing their own thing, the films should be as epic, sprawling and contain as much of the lore as possible whilst still being good films.

The Middle Earth tales were a folk history for Britain, which Tolkien felt lacked in that area, and in the tradition of all folk tales there should be changes in the retelling, commensurate with the era in which the tale is retold. It's also worth noting that they've not got the right to Unfinished tales or The Silmarillion.

I'm delighted that they're including the corruption of Saruman, Cumberbatch is Smaug, Dame Edna is the Great Goblin and Thorin looks awesome in the trailer.

arf!

Expect an Orange Advert at the cinema to make Zardoz's winsome jape less funny.

Doesn't Smaug have a hypnotic voice? I fuzzily recall something about it being unwise to let dragons talk to you. Bet Cumberbatch's going to knock that one out of the park.

Hope they can get Christopher Lee back in the saddle, if only in voice-over. The saga is genuinely myth-worthy, though with the Anglo-Saxon influence you could argue it has as much Dane and Scandenavian in its blood as British. For those who love the Hobbit I cannot recommend The Princess & the Goblin enough. It's very funny, and sweet, and magical and has goblins and a noble king and a heroic young miner who must rescue the princess and everything. Y'know, for 19th century kids. But oh-so beautifully written. Mark Twain's fave book, fact fans.

And for blood and sword-raising battlecry fun, 'Hawkmoon' by Michael Moorcock.

The exciting thing is that post-nuclear holocaust Canticle of Liebowitz stylee the Lordy Lordy trilogy might indeed one day be one of the great epic myths. However, it could also equally be a Steps annual featuring the mighty travails of H.

I confess that I agree with this. Is this because I didn't watch The Office?

It is possible I levelled my reading up too fast to appreciate The Hobbit, I remember being about 10, checking it out of the Library, and becoming excruciatingly bored with it, and rapidly returning to Asimov or Niven...

They've filmed Lee's scenes I think, when they did some principal photography in the UK. Leavesden iirc. He didn't want to fly to NZ at his age. It should be showing Saruman's fall under the thrall of Sauron, who during this period was disguised as wossisname.

The Necromancer of Dol Guldur.

And therefore be able to include Tom Bombadil and the adventures in The Old Forest. I was very pissed-off that this wasn't in the film.

On the other hand, I was very happy. Tom Bombadil is one of the worst things in a book ever.

Also, can you imagine being in the cinema with a load of teenagers when a wee pixie man starts singing about dildos? (assuming you don't already go with DocG)

The other thing they'd have included in a 9 parter would be the ENDLESS FUCKING ELVEN POETRY.

Wow, you must totally get Lulu.

She was hot when she was younger. Though to be fair, I still would.

As GILFs go she's up there with the best of them.

Her and Felicity Kendal in a hot GILF threesome.

Not sure if serious.

Bombadil has no place in the film. As a literary device, a cipher for the reader, or a hundred other things of that ilk (ref: numerous essays by geeks passim) he works jolly well - Tolkien was obviously trying to do clever and different things there, whether it worked or not is subjective. You don't need literary devices in the film version any more than you need cinematic devices in the books. Though I'll grant you i do tend to use the One Ring as the textbook example of a cinematic MacGuffin when explaining the term to proles.

The only problem I have with no Bombadil , is that at the same time they strip out the encounter with the Barrow Wights

Fuck you Tom Bombadildo
\

Hasn't anyone posted this yet?

I was, actually, but it was as much to do with the hobits adventures in the forest and Frodo's prophetic dreams as it was with Bombadil himself.

The trailer looks absolutely awful tbf

Meh. It's gonna be too long and fairly boring like LOTR, no doubt. Prometheus is WAY more exciting!

Apples are rubbish and boring. Oranges are way better!

I am excite. Also: 3d. If the public haven't decided it's shit for some reason come next December.

I agree with this because I did watch the office. (until I hated it enough to give up)