RocShemp

I hope that wasn't Smaug's voice at the end. I really didn't like it.

That aside, awesome trailer.

Dr. DVD

^ I think it was, but if you don't like it, look at the other trailer. Voice is much better in that one, and it seems like he's getting perturbed when he speaks in this one, so it's not how he will sound all the time.

hanshotfirst1138

Badass trailer, though some of the FX and sets look a bit artificial to me. Maybe my eyes are just more attuned to it nowadays and I didn't notice it in LOTR, maybe it's the fact that they're shooting digitally now, maybe some of the FX shots in the trailer are unfinished, or maybe I'm just nuts. Jackson's mesmerizing study in excess continues. I can't believe it'll be another year before it's finished, buy hey, I suppose that's a compliment. Haters be damned, I loved the first, hopefully he won't drop the ball.

Supermallet

There's plenty of bad CGI in LOTR.

RichC2

Yeah, but LOTR was over a decade ago.

RocShemp

And it shows. Go back to LOTR, there's lots that looked bad then and looks worse even now. Two great examples as Legolas climbing on the cave troll and the really fake running when the fellowship is fleeing the tomb in Moria.

Supermallet

The absolute worst is Smeagol being dragged into the river by the big fish. That's actually one of the worst CGI shots I've ever seen in any production.

RocShemp

Well that's not so much shitty CGI as shitty green screen work. But, yeah, that was the worst visual effects shot in the whole trilogy.

Supermallet

Well, you know what I mean. Shaddup.

Giles

I find it hysterical and redundant that the trailer thinks that people are truly braindead and not remember Peter Jackson also filmed the Lord of the Rings Trilogy - really tell me something new ...

RocShemp

Why So Blu?

As far as the "bad cgi" in ROTK in the water scene - that always seemed intentional to me - a "stylistic flourish" as opposed to wannabe photorealistic cgi.

RocShemp

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/FBKXJnE_yqw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Supermallet

In order for something to be a stylistic flourish, it has to be stylish.

Jay G.

I don't think it's so much a case of not remembering, as not knowing in the first place. Some people don't bother to learn directors' names.

Rex Power Colt-Robot Man

I still think Orlando Bloom is 100% digital. Fantasy version of Hatsune Miku.

hanshotfirst1138

There may well be, it's just been so long since I've seen it. I was in my teens and was blown away at the time. There is some really good CG too, to be fair, I still think some stuff-Gollum, the Balrog-look pretty damn good.

They probably want to make damn sure that John Q. Public know this was the same guy who made one of the most successful franchises of all time.

While directors should be what people pay attention to, I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of the population don't pay much attention. There are a very small handful of filmmakers who have box office cache-Spielberg, Cameron, Tarantino-but this has no stars, so they probably want to make goddamn sure it's connected in peoples' minds with the LOTR trilogy. Though judging by the box office of the first film, that won't be a huge problem.

E Unit

I assume this is the closing song. Ain't no Flight of the Conchords, but it's nice. I See Fire by Ed Sheeran.


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/uf8Fwiy0Bkc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Dr. DVD

Like the song for the first one better. Though I do like how this one has a more traditional acoustic sound to it.

james2025a

I did not feel the excitement for The first Hobbit movie last year and so gave it a miss. Picked up the Extended 3D Blu Ray this week and after watching it i am not sure where all the hate is coming from. I really enjoyed the movie and it seemed to fly through on watching. I am really looking forward to TDoS this Christmas and will venture to the cinema to see it.

E Unit

I don't think it's hate as much as it is anger over turning a small book into a massive 6+ hour trilogy. At least the LOTR trilogy was based on 3 fairly decent sized books.

TheMovieman

Yep, and with the extended editions, it'll be 9+ hours.

Jay G.

Actually, LOTR was one book split into 3 volumes for publishing reasons. As for length, it's a bit hard to compare page counts, but The Hobbit was 310 pages, while The Two Towers clocks in at 327 pages, so it's a "decently sized" book on its own.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_p...he_Rings_books

That's presuming the subsequent movies and extended editions are as long as the first. The reports are that Hobbit 2 is shorter than the first:
http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2013...s-156-minutes/

Why So Blu?

Which is why I think it's going to be a standalone chapter before the big finish. Maybe the EE of the second chapter will have more minutes of added footage? More than chapter one did?

E Unit

Right, I remember something about that way back during the initial LOTR discussions, but either way The Hobbit isn't a book that shouldn't be made into 3 separate films that are almost as long as the LOTR ones.