Get your tickets to Tolkien today!
Join us in our 24 Hour Chatroom!
Check out TheOneRing.net on Twitter!
Join us on Instagram

Latest Tweets

  1. TheOneRing.net
    TheOneRing.net: Smarter minds could probably do a whole tweet thread on Tolkien's exploration of sexuality in the Second Age, and h… https://t.co/CHdDx2Vlk8

  2. TheOneRing.net
    TheOneRing.net: Executives at New Line Cinema, Weta Workshop & Weta Digital attribute the success of the LOTR films to hiring passi… https://t.co/7ujoRatlZH

  3. TheOneRing.net
    TheOneRing.net: We are starting to see casting calls for actors "comfortable with nudity" AMAZON DON'T DO IT DO NOT! This isn't… https://t.co/OimxiDDhGO

Wired: “Why the Hobbit Trailer Creeps Me Out”

January 13, 2012 at 6:49 pm by Demosthenes  - 

Wired’s Erik Wecks makes a compelling case for Tolkien fans to not get too excited about the Hobbit.

What’s he on about? Well, he noticed something in the teaser (one that many other people did as well), but he’s gone a step further and drawn some interesting parallels to one of the most controversial and bizarre changes that Walsh and Boyens made for The Return of The King. Of course, this being the internet, your mileage may vary. Naturally, there are movie spoilers.

Read the full article on Wired.

Posted in Cate Blanchett, Characters, Fran Walsh, Hobbit Book, Hobbit Movie, Ian McKellen, Lord of the Rings, LotR Books, LotR Movies, Philippa Boyens, Production, Return of the King, Sean Astin, The Hobbit on January 13, 2012 by
Source: Wired Wired: “Why the Hobbit Trailer Creeps Me Out” | Discuss

Daggers of Tauriel

22 responses to “Wired: “Why the Hobbit Trailer Creeps Me Out””

  1. Lordvanye says:

    You can’t have that kind of blind loyalty to the source when making an adaptation. You really can’t even make a comparison of book and film. While some changes jackson and company made to lotr films may not have been improvements, the changes the author of the wired article are complaining about aren’t really worth whinging about. Rather than being “against nobility” (or whatever the word was), the screen writers actually gave frodo and aragorn a more human and interesting side.Characters that are intrinsically “perfect” are un-relatable and frankly kind of dull. Much like how, in the book, faramir had no interest in taking the ring but in the films he struggled. That made him more realistic and a much deeper character because he wasn’t so perfect in that sense. Complaining about theses changes is really no more than whining about someone having a different approach to translating the books to film than you would have. The movies are going to be different. They have to be. Please get over it and let them stand on their own.

  2. Byron says:

    WHHAAAAAAAAAAhhhhh! Yet another whining geek who can’t make a simple choice to not watch a movie and simply stick to reading their ‘precious’ ribbon-wrapped book.

  3. Byron says:

    WHHAAAAAAAAAAhhhhh! Yet another whining geek who can’t make a simple choice to not watch a movie and simply stick to reading their ‘precious’ ribbon-wrapped book.

  4. Byron says:

    WHHAAAAAAAAAAhhhhh! Yet another whining geek who can’t make a simple choice to not watch a movie and simply stick to reading their ‘precious’ ribbon-wrapped book.

  5. Geeohnny C says:

    Listen, I can’t recall a movie that was made exactly like the book.. but anyway, is this dude saying that he didn’t like the 3 Peter Jackson movies (because of fran waslh n co)? cause if so, he should go find another audience. It sounds to me he’s just trying to make a ripple for no reason. If you enjoy PJ and the movies… then hopefully you (he) will enjoy the new ones. The problem with you and me and some others is that we might expect too much this time around. 

  6. Geeohnny C says:

    Listen, I can’t recall a movie that was made exactly like the book.. but anyway, is this dude saying that he didn’t like the 3 Peter Jackson movies (because of fran waslh n co)? cause if so, he should go find another audience. It sounds to me he’s just trying to make a ripple for no reason. If you enjoy PJ and the movies… then hopefully you (he) will enjoy the new ones. The problem with you and me and some others is that we might expect too much this time around. 

  7. Geeohnny C says:

    Listen, I can’t recall a movie that was made exactly like the book.. but anyway, is this dude saying that he didn’t like the 3 Peter Jackson movies (because of fran waslh n co)? cause if so, he should go find another audience. It sounds to me he’s just trying to make a ripple for no reason. If you enjoy PJ and the movies… then hopefully you (he) will enjoy the new ones. The problem with you and me and some others is that we might expect too much this time around. 

  8. Woodez says:

    Was Galadriel not particularly friendly with Olorin/Gandalf in Valinor?

  9. Watertowercat says:

    This really does just sound like nit-picky whining, especially given the cases he cites from the trilogy.  As for Aragorn being “perfect,” there are numerous times throughout the books when he questions his ability to lead, the wisdom of his decisions, and the power he innately possesses.  He frequently feels overshadowed by Gandalf, and laments not having the surety of purpose and vision the wizard, his mentor, has.  The scriptwriters took those cues and built a logical character-arc around them.  I am also very tired of people saying Aragorn ever gave serious consideration to Eowyn; no scene in the movie suggests this, assuming you have paid attention to all the other content about Aragorn/Arwen.  Yes, in the film, he is not at all certain Arwen will be waiting for him when/if he returns, but he clearly is still in love with her and only her.  He wants to help Eowyn, but never says a romantic thing to her.  Oh, and isn’t the entire purpose of Frodo’s character to prove that no one, no matter how strong-willed and pure, is immune to the Ring?  I seem to recall a rather pivotal scene relating to just that fact.
    That said, I don’t think we can use 1.5 seconds of Galadriel, a married elf who was “loved” platonically by a dwarf and returned the sentiment, touching Gandalf’s hair as proof that Jackson and Co. are headed off in some horribly skewed direction.  The whole point of putting the Maiar in human forms was so that they would know the pain, suffering, and, occasionally, joys of mortality.  Approaching the subject from a purely mythological standpoint, you have to think of it like the Christian view of Jesus as God incarnate.  He is a higher Being, the highest by Christian standards, yet he is very much a human being as well, subject to doubt, torment, weariness, and despair.  Except it’s even more fitting in Tolkien’s legendarium, where there are few epistemological contradictions, and the Being in question is, though powerful, out of his native form and being forced to deal with the beginnings of some very large problems that may be beyond his abilities to resolve.

  10. Watertowercat says:

    This really does just sound like nit-picky whining, especially given the cases he cites from the trilogy.  As for Aragorn being “perfect,” there are numerous times throughout the books when he questions his ability to lead, the wisdom of his decisions, and the power he innately possesses.  He frequently feels overshadowed by Gandalf, and laments not having the surety of purpose and vision the wizard, his mentor, has.  The scriptwriters took those cues and built a logical character-arc around them.  I am also very tired of people saying Aragorn ever gave serious consideration to Eowyn; no scene in the movie suggests this, assuming you have paid attention to all the other content about Aragorn/Arwen.  Yes, in the film, he is not at all certain Arwen will be waiting for him when/if he returns, but he clearly is still in love with her and only her.  He wants to help Eowyn, but never says a romantic thing to her.  Oh, and isn’t the entire purpose of Frodo’s character to prove that no one, no matter how strong-willed and pure, is immune to the Ring?  I seem to recall a rather pivotal scene relating to just that fact.
    That said, I don’t think we can use 1.5 seconds of Galadriel, a married elf who was “loved” platonically by a dwarf and returned the sentiment, touching Gandalf’s hair as proof that Jackson and Co. are headed off in some horribly skewed direction.  The whole point of putting the Maiar in human forms was so that they would know the pain, suffering, and, occasionally, joys of mortality.  Approaching the subject from a purely mythological standpoint, you have to think of it like the Christian view of Jesus as God incarnate.  He is a higher Being, the highest by Christian standards, yet he is very much a human being as well, subject to doubt, torment, weariness, and despair.  Except it’s even more fitting in Tolkien’s legendarium, where there are few epistemological contradictions, and the Being in question is, though powerful, out of his native form and being forced to deal with the beginnings of some very large problems that may be beyond his abilities to resolve.

  11. Watertowercat says:

    This really does just sound like nit-picky whining, especially given the cases he cites from the trilogy.  As for Aragorn being “perfect,” there are numerous times throughout the books when he questions his ability to lead, the wisdom of his decisions, and the power he innately possesses.  He frequently feels overshadowed by Gandalf, and laments not having the surety of purpose and vision the wizard, his mentor, has.  The scriptwriters took those cues and built a logical character-arc around them.  I am also very tired of people saying Aragorn ever gave serious consideration to Eowyn; no scene in the movie suggests this, assuming you have paid attention to all the other content about Aragorn/Arwen.  Yes, in the film, he is not at all certain Arwen will be waiting for him when/if he returns, but he clearly is still in love with her and only her.  He wants to help Eowyn, but never says a romantic thing to her.  Oh, and isn’t the entire purpose of Frodo’s character to prove that no one, no matter how strong-willed and pure, is immune to the Ring?  I seem to recall a rather pivotal scene relating to just that fact.
    That said, I don’t think we can use 1.5 seconds of Galadriel, a married elf who was “loved” platonically by a dwarf and returned the sentiment, touching Gandalf’s hair as proof that Jackson and Co. are headed off in some horribly skewed direction.  The whole point of putting the Maiar in human forms was so that they would know the pain, suffering, and, occasionally, joys of mortality.  Approaching the subject from a purely mythological standpoint, you have to think of it like the Christian view of Jesus as God incarnate.  He is a higher Being, the highest by Christian standards, yet he is very much a human being as well, subject to doubt, torment, weariness, and despair.  Except it’s even more fitting in Tolkien’s legendarium, where there are few epistemological contradictions, and the Being in question is, though powerful, out of his native form and being forced to deal with the beginnings of some very large problems that may be beyond his abilities to resolve.

  12. Haha says:

    The One Ring.net 
    Forged by and for fans of Peter Jackson

  13. sucaj says:

    My problem with the movies isn’t necessarily with the changes to the characters.  It’s that the movies were irrecoverably ruined during the first minutes of Fellowship of the Ring.

    The ENTIRE premise of the books is that we’re following a humble, yet noble group of creatures that slowly realizes that the world is much larger, more complex, and more full of evil than they could have imagined.  We follow them through unbelievable landscapes, meeting incredible characters, and performing incredible tasks.  These creatures, independently, grow into the roles they have been forced into – and in the end, triumph over evil, and are wise beyond their years.

    Within minutes of Fellowship of the Ring, Peter Jackson shows us the actual face of the largest evil present in the world, shows that he can be defeated, shows how he was defeated in the past, and frames the movies in the context of a great war – not in the context of the hobbits.  Peter Jackson was wrapped up in his massive and impressive production of the movies, and loses sight that the epic scale of what is going on is ONLY the backdrop of the true story- the journey of the hobbits.

    Peter Jackson routinely destroys every bit of emotional complexity in the movies he makes.  If you haven’t, read “The Lovely Bones” and then watch his movie.  It’s deplorable how much Jackson misses the point in his adaptations.   

  14. sucaj says:

    My problem with the movies isn’t necessarily with the changes to the characters.  It’s that the movies were irrecoverably ruined during the first minutes of Fellowship of the Ring.

    The ENTIRE premise of the books is that we’re following a humble, yet noble group of creatures that slowly realizes that the world is much larger, more complex, and more full of evil than they could have imagined.  We follow them through unbelievable landscapes, meeting incredible characters, and performing incredible tasks.  These creatures, independently, grow into the roles they have been forced into – and in the end, triumph over evil, and are wise beyond their years.

    Within minutes of Fellowship of the Ring, Peter Jackson shows us the actual face of the largest evil present in the world, shows that he can be defeated, shows how he was defeated in the past, and frames the movies in the context of a great war – not in the context of the hobbits.  Peter Jackson was wrapped up in his massive and impressive production of the movies, and loses sight that the epic scale of what is going on is ONLY the backdrop of the true story- the journey of the hobbits.

    Peter Jackson routinely destroys every bit of emotional complexity in the movies he makes.  If you haven’t, read “The Lovely Bones” and then watch his movie.  It’s deplorable how much Jackson misses the point in his adaptations.   

  15. sucaj says:

    My problem with the movies isn’t necessarily with the changes to the characters.  It’s that the movies were irrecoverably ruined during the first minutes of Fellowship of the Ring.

    The ENTIRE premise of the books is that we’re following a humble, yet noble group of creatures that slowly realizes that the world is much larger, more complex, and more full of evil than they could have imagined.  We follow them through unbelievable landscapes, meeting incredible characters, and performing incredible tasks.  These creatures, independently, grow into the roles they have been forced into – and in the end, triumph over evil, and are wise beyond their years.

    Within minutes of Fellowship of the Ring, Peter Jackson shows us the actual face of the largest evil present in the world, shows that he can be defeated, shows how he was defeated in the past, and frames the movies in the context of a great war – not in the context of the hobbits.  Peter Jackson was wrapped up in his massive and impressive production of the movies, and loses sight that the epic scale of what is going on is ONLY the backdrop of the true story- the journey of the hobbits.

    Peter Jackson routinely destroys every bit of emotional complexity in the movies he makes.  If you haven’t, read “The Lovely Bones” and then watch his movie.  It’s deplorable how much Jackson misses the point in his adaptations.   

  16. Gawain514 says:

    Wecks is completely wrong. Read deeper into the mythology. Gandalf is a Christlike figure, a [demi]god that has been incarnated and is subject to all the suffering and uncertainty that mortals endure. Of the five that came to middle earth, Gandalf was the only one that accomplished his purpose; the other five failed and succumbed to tempation in one form or another (Saruman – power; Radagast – triviality, the Blues – who knows).
    In the trailer scene with Galadriel, the writing team is expanding on a part of Gandalf’s character that Tolkien fully intended – his human side full of frailty and uncertainty. Tolkien says that Galadrial alone in Middle earth knew Gandalf in the west and that they were kindrid spirits even before the silmarils were stolen. She alone in middle earth understood him, his purpose, his burden, and his sacrifice.
    It is a strong and touching scene.   

  17. Gawain514 says:

    Wecks is completely wrong. Read deeper into the mythology. Gandalf is a Christlike figure, a [demi]god that has been incarnated and is subject to all the suffering and uncertainty that mortals endure. Of the five that came to middle earth, Gandalf was the only one that accomplished his purpose; the other five failed and succumbed to tempation in one form or another (Saruman – power; Radagast – triviality, the Blues – who knows).
    In the trailer scene with Galadriel, the writing team is expanding on a part of Gandalf’s character that Tolkien fully intended – his human side full of frailty and uncertainty. Tolkien says that Galadrial alone in Middle earth knew Gandalf in the west and that they were kindrid spirits even before the silmarils were stolen. She alone in middle earth understood him, his purpose, his burden, and his sacrifice.
    It is a strong and touching scene.   

  18. Gawain514 says:

    Wecks is completely wrong. Read deeper into the mythology. Gandalf is a Christlike figure, a [demi]god that has been incarnated and is subject to all the suffering and uncertainty that mortals endure. Of the five that came to middle earth, Gandalf was the only one that accomplished his purpose; the other five failed and succumbed to tempation in one form or another (Saruman – power; Radagast – triviality, the Blues – who knows).
    In the trailer scene with Galadriel, the writing team is expanding on a part of Gandalf’s character that Tolkien fully intended – his human side full of frailty and uncertainty. Tolkien says that Galadrial alone in Middle earth knew Gandalf in the west and that they were kindrid spirits even before the silmarils were stolen. She alone in middle earth understood him, his purpose, his burden, and his sacrifice.
    It is a strong and touching scene.   

  19. Brego says:

    Gosh it’s amazing how the internet brings the expert out in everyone.  I love the books, all of them, I love the movie.  Yes there are some scenes which I would have done differently; yes there are some chapters in the books which I would have written differently.  These so called critics seem to think that there 1 fits all idea that all people must view everything in the same way infuriates me.  Get over it!
    I for one love the brief glimpse of Gandalf with Galadriel in the trailer.  Of course after thousands of years they would be close friends.  To even insinuate that there is anything more based on the trailer is ridiculous and I must say obscene!
    And Sucaj “within the first few minutes of the film”…. What absolute rubbish.  Within the first few minutes of the film PJ and crew manage to methodically brief the viewer of the make up and history of Middle Earth and the characters who we are just about to love and hate!  You may want to pick up your copy of TLOTR, there’s a section called Appendices, and it states almost everything which lies in the first 10 minutes of the film.

  20. Brego says:

    Gosh it’s amazing how the internet brings the expert out in everyone.  I love the books, all of them, I love the movie.  Yes there are some scenes which I would have done differently; yes there are some chapters in the books which I would have written differently.  These so called critics seem to think that there 1 fits all idea that all people must view everything in the same way infuriates me.  Get over it!
    I for one love the brief glimpse of Gandalf with Galadriel in the trailer.  Of course after thousands of years they would be close friends.  To even insinuate that there is anything more based on the trailer is ridiculous and I must say obscene!
    And Sucaj “within the first few minutes of the film”…. What absolute rubbish.  Within the first few minutes of the film PJ and crew manage to methodically brief the viewer of the make up and history of Middle Earth and the characters who we are just about to love and hate!  You may want to pick up your copy of TLOTR, there’s a section called Appendices, and it states almost everything which lies in the first 10 minutes of the film.

  21. Brego says:

    Gosh it’s amazing how the internet brings the expert out in everyone.  I love the books, all of them, I love the movie.  Yes there are some scenes which I would have done differently; yes there are some chapters in the books which I would have written differently.  These so called critics seem to think that there 1 fits all idea that all people must view everything in the same way infuriates me.  Get over it!
    I for one love the brief glimpse of Gandalf with Galadriel in the trailer.  Of course after thousands of years they would be close friends.  To even insinuate that there is anything more based on the trailer is ridiculous and I must say obscene!
    And Sucaj “within the first few minutes of the film”…. What absolute rubbish.  Within the first few minutes of the film PJ and crew manage to methodically brief the viewer of the make up and history of Middle Earth and the characters who we are just about to love and hate!  You may want to pick up your copy of TLOTR, there’s a section called Appendices, and it states almost everything which lies in the first 10 minutes of the film.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *