Recommended Posts

Maybe they'll rename the film: it won't be The Hobbit, but The Rabbit. It will tell the story of Bilbo the Rabbit, and the Company Of Bunnies, led by Hare Oakenshield. They will go on a quest to defeat Radagast, whose goal is to enslave every living rabbit in Middle-Earth. Along the way, they'll be helped by amazing characters and creatures, such as Gandalf The Buck, Elrond Half-Rodent, Beorn Bunny and Bard Bunny.

In a hole, in the ground, there lived a Rabbit...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to forget that Tolkien himself attempted a rewrite of the book after he'd finished LOTR (although it never amounted to anything as far as I know).

They told him it wasnt The Hobbit anymore.

Jackson will succeed were Tolkien failed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they'll rename the film: it won't be The Hobbit, but The Rabbit. It will tell the story of Bilbo the Rabbit, and the Company Of Bunnies, led by Hare Oakenshield. They will go on a quest to defeat Radagast, whose goal is to enslave every living rabbit in Middle-Earth. Along the way, they'll be helped by amazing characters and creatures, such as Gandalf The Buck, Elrond Half-Rodent, Beorn Bunny and Bard Bunny.

In a hole, in the ground, there lived a Rabbit...

Tagline: It's Rabbit Season.

Cut to Radagast J. Fudd saying: Be wevy, wevy quiet. We're hunting wabbits. Hehehehehehe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't get is why Radagast had to look like this.

Aren't him, Saruman and Gandalf from the same order? How come they don't look similar then? I guess I should consider ourselves lucky that Gandalf and Saruman didn't get a makeover then. Maybe they could have used the birthday cake hairdo for Gandalf that was shown in the EE of ROTK.

When the book says "birds are especially his friends", I'm just glad they didn't have his cart pulled by fucking pigeons. Or Gwaihir himself. Hey, he's in this book as well! Creative freedom, motherf .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BUT, the big question wasn't asked: any new Howard Shore music in there?

And, as far as I'm concerned, the only worth asking. I'm only interested in this film, because I want to hear the score.

Karol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they'll rename the film: it won't be The Hobbit, but The Rabbit. It will tell the story of Bilbo the Rabbit, and the Company Of Bunnies, led by Hare Oakenshield. They will go on a quest to defeat Radagast, whose goal is to enslave every living rabbit in Middle-Earth. Along the way, they'll be helped by amazing characters and creatures, such as Gandalf The Buck, Elrond Half-Rodent, Beorn Bunny and Bard Bunny.

In a hole, in the ground, there lived a Rabbit...

"Nasty little rabbit"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, you’ve reached KK’s voicemail. Unfortunately he is unavailable at this moment as he is immersing himself in various sequences of torture to cleanse himself of the sins of Jackson and his crew. Please leave a message after the tone.

Hey guys, I’m back. You know after reading all these updates, I decided to seclude myself for an hour in a dark corner so I could collect my thoughts. And you know what? I decided life is too short to put myself through all this pain just for a movie’s sake. So I’m going to take 5 min to calm down, relax, and let go of these trivial matters…

screw it.

WTF!!!!

wtf wtf wtf wtf wtf wtf wtf wtf wtf

9 wtf’s to face the 9 Wraiths of the Dark Lord who would eventually go on to face the 9 assembled members of the Fellowship of the Ring! Stupid freakin’ 9!!

Alright, when I first heard of the 10 min preview I did not expect any of this. I have a lot to say folks, and I apologize in advance for the horrifyingly abysmal and juvenile quality of the writing…

You know, one of initial reactions to when I first heard that the Hobbit was being made was sheer horror. Because frankly I didn’t want a film to be made that might disappoint and fail to such a level that the greatness of the LOTR would be tarnished. In other words, I was afraid that Jackson would pull a Lucas. I mean, nobody remembers how great the SW originals were, just how awful the prequels are!

But the doubts slowly came to be forgotten. History became legend, legend became myth and for two years I was quite pleased with the progress of the film. The trailer simply eradicated my doubts and fears. Epic vistas, great characters and all that (of course I had my gripes with the starfish hairdo too!). told me that we were in for an epic film.

BUT WTF IS THIS?!?

First of all. Nazgul and tombs?! I don’t like…I don’t like one bit precious…yes…cruel Jacksonses tricks us! What the hell is he doing messing with all that? Sure, we’d all like to see some nice epic White Council scenes, but that doesn’t mean you can go messing up Middle Earth timelines and reinventing the Nazgul as a bunch of zombies! The Nazgul were men…but they weren’t dead men that Sauron resurrected….They were LIVING men who were corrupted by Sauron’s rings of power….they are still ALIVE as mere shadows because of the binding power of their rings…WHY ON EARTH WOULD THEY NEED TOMBS?!?!?

Oh and the bunnies….THE FREAKIN BUNNIES!!!! Is this what you wanted Peter Jackson?!? HUH?!

14mz0r7.jpg

YES, Radagast loved his animals…but COME ON! Bunnies pullin his sled? BUNNIES?!?!?!?!?!?! What do you think this is? Narnia!? The best way I can imagine

this is the Father Christmas scene, but that worked in its atmosphere. How would oversized bunnies work on Middle Earth??!!!

The nature of Legolas' appearance wasn't totally unexpected. We should have expected Jackson to pull another Leggy (isn’t that what he liked to call it?).

Its commonly accepted that LOTR as written in the novels would not have worked as a film if it had been directly translated onto screen, so the changes were understandable. But Jason, the Hobbit would not work as a direct translation on to screen either. I just re-read the book for the first time in a few years last week and it came to me how playful and silly it is at times. It’s an absolutely delightful novel that I love so dearly, but its intended as a children’s tale. What Jackson and the world wants is an epic. And considering how Tolkien himself went back to adjust a few things so it would come across as a prequel to LOTR, changes are acceptable in the film. But, now I’m really worried that Jackson might have taken things in the book too far…I mean bunnies, come on man.

NONE OF THIS MAKES SENSE TO ME!!! Having watched the LOTR appendixes, I had the impression that Jackson and his crew knew Tolkien’s work inside out; they just made the changes in LOTR for the sake of cinema. But if these reports are largely true, then what was Jackson smoking? And where was Phillipa Boyens in all this?!? Wasn’t she the set’s legitimate Tolkien nut! How could she let any of this happen!

As for the 48fps…its a bit disappointing to hear about all that. But the One Ring.net guys liked it, and its my belief that they’re still working on it, so hopefully they’ll fix that up soon.

You know what? The more I think about it, the harder it is to believe. I think the idiot who wrote that review was probably a bit irritated with the 48 fps so he just dismissed a lot of what he saw. Perhaps he knew next to nothing about Tolkien other than what he saw in the LOTR films, and maybe he just randomly put in the tombs because he thought the Nazgul were the undead…and maybe the “rabbits” were just some other creatures he couldn’t identify and in his foolish frustration with the 48fps, he dismissed them as silly rabbits. I seriously doubt that a film with one of the most intelligent crews in all film-making could make such stupid mistakes as that…

Yes…that’s my theory. Either that, or he was seriously smoking something while watching that preview.

Frankly, I’m surprised so many of you read the preview description on The One Ring. I avoided that because I don’t want anything to be spoiled in the film.

And exactly how much could you show in 10 min?! Theres talks of trolls, white council meetings, dwarf introductions and the fact that even Radagast appears makes this preview an extremely disjointed experience to me. Perhaps that reviewer really got his stuff mixed up…maybe we shouldn’t be quick to judge the entirety the film on the basis of a review that could potentially be extremely inaccurate.

Indeed, mercy is what this film needs. Jackson maybe many things, and he may have many silly PJ tendencies, but he is no Lucas. And he is not so great a fool to make the erroneous sins described in that review…I refuse to believe. Jackson is a perfectionist if there was any, and even if he screwed up, his team wouldn’t let major flaws like that get by. This all has to be a misunderstanding…

so says,

KK, The Merciful One.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was so into this a pair of years ago, but nowadays I feel distanced from this project. In fact, all I've seen of it so far is fine by me. Maybe it's that I come to it from a different perspective.

I want to see a film that reminds me of the book and wakes up the what I felt when I went through Tolkien when I was a kid. That's all. That includes the silliness of The Hobbit. Bring on the hairdos. I'm not really a Tolkien fan, even though I studied his language creations for a while (I still like them).

If this filmmaking team want to explain Gandalf whereabouts with a fancy fantasy-horror subplot, that is also fine. That subplot was going to include catacombs and the like anyway, you might as well go all the way and get the most out of it.

You people are skipping some important stuff. Like Galadriel caring about why Gandalf chose that particular hobbit. I have good feelings about some of these details.

And no, Thorin doesn't look "too human". What's a dwarf supposed to look like? They're people too! Some of the creations of a Vala are allowed to look pretty to the eyes of men.

Edit: I want to add that when the time comes, I'll probably be among the first in line to criticize some of PJ's common traits. The ones that ruined ROTK for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was apprehensive about the 48fps when it was first announced and the negative reaction to the footage has only added to that. James Cameron was championed it by saying that it is closer to reality than 24fps, but I think there's a danger in trying to make cinema so close to real life that it actually seems fake. Instead of the sets, costumes, makeup, etc. feeling like they apart of a believable fictional world on screen, you have those things appear to be phony and out of place in various locations in New Zealand. But I haven't seen the footage so I can't really comment on it; I'm still definitely giving Jackson the benefit of the doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: I want to add that when the time comes, I'll probably be among the first in line to criticize some of PJ's common traits. The ones that ruined ROTK for me.

Seems like there are a few people here who don't like ROTK, which is something I'll never understand. Sure there are the moments of light humour, but few (if anybody) could have achieved the grandeur of this great finale. Great pacing, stunning in technical aspects and the film really sweeps you off the feet. Sure there are the multiple endings, bot those actually remained incredibly loyal to the book (with the exception of dismissal of the Scouring of the Shire, which was a wise decision). Both the score and the film are easily the best of the trilogy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: I want to add that when the time comes, I'll probably be among the first in line to criticize some of PJ's common traits. The ones that ruined ROTK for me.

Seems like there are a few people here who don't like ROTK, which is something I'll never understand. Sure there are the moments of light humour, but few (if anybody) could have achieved the grandeur of this great finale. Great pacing, stunning in technical aspects and the film really sweeps you off the feet. Sure there are the multiple endings, bot those actually remained incredibly loyal to the book (with the exception of dismissal of the Scouring of the Shire, which was a wise decision). Both the score and the film are easily the best of the trilogy.

Oh, you're misunderstanding me here. It's one of these films that somehow really moved me. I don't have a problem with the humour and the "grandeur" of the finale is well, grand. It was later that I came to certain conclusions about the pacing, what ended up in the film and what didn't, some solutions of the script (beacons, staircase) and the somewhat devoid of personality despiction of the land of Gondor, which "ruined" the effect on me so to speak. Other than that I'm fine with it. There's always the posibility that I start noticing similar things in The Hobbit given the overall success of RotK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they'll rename the film: it won't be The Hobbit, but The Rabbit. It will tell the story of Bilbo the Rabbit, and the Company Of Bunnies, led by Hare Oakenshield. They will go on a quest to defeat Radagast, whose goal is to enslave every living rabbit in Middle-Earth. Along the way, they'll be helped by amazing characters and creatures, such as Gandalf The Buck, Elrond Half-Rodent, Beorn Bunny and Bard Bunny.

In a hole, in the ground, there lived a Rabbit...

Tagline: It's Rabbit Season.

Cut to Radagast J. Fudd saying: Be wevy, wevy quiet. We're hunting wabbits. Hehehehehehe.

ROTFLMAO

And you get the Award for "Outsanding Performance In A Supporting Joke"!

oscar-statue-0309-lg-99529884.jpg

Oh, you're misunderstanding me here. It's one of these films that somehow really moved me. I don't have a problem with the humour and the "grandeur" of the finale is well, grand. It was later that I came to certain conclusions about the pacing, what ended up in the film and what didn't, some solutions of the script (beacons, staircase) and the somewhat devoid of personality despiction of the land of Gondor, which "ruined" the effect on me so to speak.

I hate to say it, but while ROTK is my favourite film from the trilogy, the above statement is indeed one of its biggest flaws. Apart from Faramir and Denethor, there are no characters to represent Gondor that would make us feel more the despair in which this kingdom is. The film could have use at least one or two faces to embody the realm of Gondor, in order for us to feel the human side of it all. But as it is, Gondorians are just random faces. Shame.

Strange how everyone seem willing to judge a 3 hour movie from a 10 minute clip.

Well, descriptions of sled being pulled by bunnies generally tend to have that effect on people...

But to be honest, after thinking a bit about it, I'm more or less willing to accept it... if you take into consideration that apparently, in the film, the story will be told by Bilbo to Frodo. So giant bunnies and other nonsensical thing are just an addition by Bilbo to "spice things up" a bit (much like in the book, which is supposed to have been written by Bilbo, and has walking dogs, and giant bees). But even thinking that way, I'm sure I'll still have hard time accepting those bunnies... Bunnies are evil, man!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange how everyone seem willing to judge a 3 hour movie from a 10 minute clip. Especially considering no one actually saw that clip....

It is internet's prerogative. Make assumptions from least amount of information and produce bile, vitriol and disgruntlement.

And yes bunnies are kind of evil. All that floppy eared, bushy tailed cuteness can't be real. They are hiding something behind those adorably cute button eyes of theirs, harboring dark designs and evil plots. Almost as bad as pandas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there any detailed descriptions of the "bunnies"? Maybe they're not bunny rabbits at all, but big badass hares harnessed in studded leather, battle scarred and scruffy hides chomping at the bit. I wouldn't fuck with 'em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's exactly what I was talking about! They're *uck*** evil! I tell you! All sharp pointy teeth and red eyes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Far Over The Misty Carrots Cold...

To rabbits hole, where there's mold...

The hares were roaring on the heights...

The doe was moaning in the night...

The eyes were red, in flaming spread...

The teeth like torches, blazed with light...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, descriptions of sled being pulled by bunnies generally tend to have that effect on people...

But to be honest, after thinking a bit about it, I'm more or less willing to accept it... if you take into consideration that apparently, in the film, the story will be told by Bilbo to Frodo. So giant bunnies and other nonsensical thing are just an addition by Bilbo to "spice things up" a bit (much like in the book, which is supposed to have been written by Bilbo, and has walking dogs, and giant bees). But even thinking that way, I'm sure I'll still have hard time accepting those bunnies... Bunnies are evil, man!

They're pure evil regardless of whose perspective the story is in.besides, Bilbo never meets Radagast, he never about Gandalf's meetings. That's all behind the scene stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there any detailed descriptions of the "bunnies"? Maybe they're not bunny rabbits at all, but big badass hares harnessed in studded leather, battle scarred and scruffy hides chomping at the bit. I wouldn't fuck with 'em.

they are described as Jackrabbits somewhere else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there any detailed descriptions of the "bunnies"? Maybe they're not bunny rabbits at all, but big badass hares harnessed in studded leather, battle scarred and scruffy hides chomping at the bit. I wouldn't fuck with 'em.

they are described as Jackrabbits somewhere else.

That doesn't make it any better really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Radagast should just ride a horse like he did in LotR. Like normal wizards do.

Normal wizards? There are no such things!

Wizards are weird! Deal with it!

Well one of them was trying to take of the world with genetically mutated super men (or Orcs) and the other one sleeps in ditches and hangs out with Hobbits. So the third will naturally be a certified lunatic hermit with bird nests growing from his hair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, descriptions of sled being pulled by bunnies generally tend to have that effect on people...

But to be honest, after thinking a bit about it, I'm more or less willing to accept it... if you take into consideration that apparently, in the film, the story will be told by Bilbo to Frodo. So giant bunnies and other nonsensical thing are just an addition by Bilbo to "spice things up" a bit (much like in the book, which is supposed to have been written by Bilbo, and has walking dogs, and giant bees). But even thinking that way, I'm sure I'll still have hard time accepting those bunnies... Bunnies are evil, man!

They're pure evil regardless of whose perspective the story is in.besides, Bilbo never meets Radagast, he never about Gandalf's meetings. That's all behind the scene stuff.

Well, if you had read Quint's reports (not our Quint, the other Quint, from Ain't It Cool News), you would have known that Bilbo and the Dwarves are actually present during a scene where Gandalf and Radagast are speaking.

Normal wizards? There are no such things!

Wizards are weird! Deal with it!

Well one of them was trying to take of the world with genetically mutated super men (or Orcs) and the other one sleeps in ditches and hangs out with Hobbits. So the third will naturally be a certified lunatic hermit with bird nests growing from his hair.

And don't even get met started on Alatar and Pallando! These two are the worst of the gang!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, descriptions of sled being pulled by bunnies generally tend to have that effect on people...

But to be honest, after thinking a bit about it, I'm more or less willing to accept it... if you take into consideration that apparently, in the film, the story will be told by Bilbo to Frodo. So giant bunnies and other nonsensical thing are just an addition by Bilbo to "spice things up" a bit (much like in the book, which is supposed to have been written by Bilbo, and has walking dogs, and giant bees). But even thinking that way, I'm sure I'll still have hard time accepting those bunnies... Bunnies are evil, man!

They're pure evil regardless of whose perspective the story is in.besides, Bilbo never meets Radagast, he never about Gandalf's meetings. That's all behind the scene stuff.

Well, if you had read Quint's reports (not our Quint, the other Quint, from Ain't It Cool News), you would have known that Bilbo and the Dwarves are actually present during a scene where Gandalf and Radagast are speaking.

Normal wizards? There are no such things!

Wizards are weird! Deal with it!

Well one of them was trying to take of the world with genetically mutated super men (or Orcs) and the other one sleeps in ditches and hangs out with Hobbits. So the third will naturally be a certified lunatic hermit with bird nests growing from his hair.

And don't even get met started on Alatar and Pallando! These two are the worst of the gang!

They just have the blues, that's all. Blues wizards they are called.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Normal wizards? There are no such things!

Wizards are weird! Deal with it!

Well one of them was trying to take of the world with genetically mutated super men (or Orcs) and the other one sleeps in ditches and hangs out with Hobbits. So the third will naturally be a certified lunatic hermit with bird nests growing from his hair.

And don't even get met started on Alatar and Pallando! These two are the worst of the gang!

They just have the blues, that's all. Blues wizards they are called.

Alatar And Pallando's Lament - Music By Jazzy J. Jones

A- I'v got the bluuuuuuueeeeeessssssss.

Can you feel the bluuuuueeeeessssss deep inside meeeeeeee??

P- I've got the bluuuuuuueeeeeeeeesssssss.

I don't feel like going to barbecuuuuueeeeeessssss.

A- I've got the bluuuuuuueeeeeessssssss

Let's have some fonduuuuuuuueeeeeeesssssss

P- I've got the bluuuuuueeeeeeeeesssssss

I've got so many issuuuuuuueeeeeeessssssss

A- I've got the bluuuuueeeeeeesssss

Would you lend me some tissuuuuuueeeeessssss??

A&P-We've got the bluuuuuuuuueeeeeeeeeeessssssss

That's why people call us The Bluuuuueeeeeeeeesssssss

And this is our song, a song that came out of the bluuuuuuueeeeeesssssssss!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Blues Wizard Brothers?

We should not even jest of such things. Internet is a dangerous tool Faleel. We don't know who else might be watching.

*throws a cloth over JWFan forums in fear of Peter Jackson's eye*

o-howard-shore-returning-to-score-the-hobbit-for-peter-jackson.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No that's from the time of RotK sessions if I remember correctly. Shore looks quite pained and PJ is his usual manic self.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh most reviewers do not care about the inaccuracies of the story telling but consistently moan about the 48fps and how cheap it makes the film look. Ouch PJ! Ouch film reports and critics!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are some of these reviewers not taking in to account (or for the sake of being able to criticise, ignoring) the fact that the footage was largely unfinished and ungraded? The scene was Saruman was apparently still just actors against green screen.

We've seen how great it will look in the trailer. It doesn't look like HDTV or, as that last review mentioned, an old Doctor Who episode. The 48fps probably will take some getting used to when we first see it, but I don't think anyone can judge the look of a film based on footage that hasn't even been colour graded yet. Look at raw footage from LOTR - looks pretty rough too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure under normal circumstances the journos would absolutely take an unfinished state into consideration. No, this seems alarming. Maybe the final colour grading and various other tinkerings will drastically improve the finished aesthetic, but I still can't help but wonder why Jackson would allow such an apparently substandard work-in-progress to be seen... and dissected by the rabid internets. It makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd probably chalk that up to a bad judgement call. There's no doubt that this wasn't the right way to show off the new filming technique. Would have been better just showing the trailer, maybe slightly extended, in 48fps 3D. There has been positive feedback as well though.

It's going to look different, but for now I'll trust that PJ and Co will not have gone ahead with this if it was going to make the end result look like it was made for TV. It's not supposed to look like 24fps celluloid but there will be a "normal" version released as well. I'm not a huge fan of 3D anyway so I dare say I'll be watching the 2D 24fps version first and then I'll give it a go in super smooth-o-vision :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now