Spoiler

I was actually a bit more confused by the shot of Galadriel's feet. What were they trying to suggest there? She goes and looks in her mirror?

Wondering the same. Only time will tell ...

Spoiler

the tone, the flash of the "eye", the song,

Yep, and Galadriel's feet.

And you know, because the feel and intent of Pippin's song is so different from the original, I often forget that it is a re-working of one of the Walking Song verses from FotR in "Three is Company". I looked it up and here is what it says (ahhh, how I love Tolkien's description in that paragraph just prior to the song):

Bilbo Baggins had made the words, to a tune that was as old as the hills, and taught it to Frodo as they walked in the lanes of the Water-valley and talked about Adventure.

The idea is "oh lovely, now we're nearly back home", which is a rather hobbitty attitude to adventure

Yes! So different than that heart-wrenching song in RotK, which is amazing in its own right. It is quite something what the change of a few words can do to the entire atmosphere.

If they're going to adapt Tolkien's poetry, I wish they had adapted the Misty Mountains Reprise instead. Particularly the last two verses:

That song is about the best part of the first movie.

Indeed and indeed!

Ahh, Varna, I have heard/read about Swann's Song Cycle over the years, and have always been meaning to track it down. Thanks for that link! Lovely!

shastastwin, I like the contemplative nature of Rudd's version too. And I appreciate his note beneath the video, talking of ... "[those] who have lost the vision that Tolkien gave to the world."

Normally I attempt to see the positives, but in a nutshell, this trailer didn't "do it" for me in the way some of the other trailers did. The teaser trailer for AUJ (with the Dwarves' song) created massive excitement and I couldn't stop watching it. In the trailer for DOS, I was shocked into chills to see the dragon's head appearing at the end (and once again, couldn't stop watching it). Sadly, this trailer didn't stir up any of these emotions for me. Maybe it is still partially my disappointment over the name "The Battle of the Five Armies". Anyway, I didn't even get chills from excitement once.

The shot of Galadriel's feet is a throwback to LotR. I don't know if it's there for any other purpose, but to remind us, "Look! These movies are related to the Lord of the Rings!" Also, the shot of

I am disappointed with the way Gandalf has been characterized. He appears too weak and vulnerable. Not to mention the whole subplot with the Necromancer -- which is completely lacking in subtlety. The Necromancer showed himself so clearly at the end of DOS; how could Gandalf not know who he is? Yet in FotR some 60-ish years later, he is taken completely off-guard by the idea of Sauron.

Also, the choice of trailer music...odd. It's not that I don't like Pippin's song (I love it)--and I know that it's just there to put us into a certain mood--but I really want to hear more original pieces for The Hobbit. One of the things that made The Lord of the Rings so great was its ingenious and original soundtrack. However, The Hobbit movies keep "flashing back" bits and pieces of the LotR soundtrack -- and I'm disappointed in that. I'd really like to see more originality. Sadly, I don't know if that's going to end up being the case.

Edited

I am disappointed with the way Gandalf has been characterized. He appears too weak and vulnerable.

Spoiler

Galadriel and Gandalf. GRRRR!!!! Hollywood, could you possibly have a hero character someday that's a hero and not coddled and hand-held in order to be halfway decent?

Hear-hear!

*high fives Lady Galadriel and fantasia re their thoughts on Gandalf* There were hints of this wimpyness in The RotK—the confrontation of the Witch King and Gandalf, for example—but this weak characterization is more pronounced in The Hobbit films. Come on, PJ!

As for the whole Gandalf/Sauron thing ... I just don't get what they're trying to prove. 95% of the films seem so different than Tolkien's vision.

Lady G, I think that's it: whilst Pippin's song is an amazingly, terribly poignant piece in The RotK, it belongs in that story ... not this one. Yes, original music, please! This is *not* The LotR, for Pete's sake. (Haha, yeah.)

Spoiler

Galadriel and Gandalf. GRRRR!!!! Hollywood, could you possibly have a hero character someday that's a hero and not coddled and hand-held in order to be halfway decent?

Hear-hear!

*high fives Lady Galadriel and fantasia re their thoughts on Gandalf* There were hints of this wimpyness in The RotK—the confrontation of the Witch King and Gandalf, for example—but this weak characterization is more pronounced in The Hobbit films. Come on, PJ!

Ugh -- I have always hated that confrontation scene. Perhaps that is why it ended up deleted from the theatrical version--even though apparently they thought it was good enough to be added into the extended.

In my opinion, Gandalf is not a character whose characterization should be played with to the extent that it has been. He is a hero sent by the Valar to protect Middle-Earth. In FotR, they play around a lot with the idea that Gandalf may finally meet a match that is too large for him to handle. We see a lot of emotion from him--fear, desperation, uncertainty--when he discovers that the One Ring has appeared and that Sauron is moving. When he is

we are supposed to feel Frodo's desperation as he realizes that he can no longer depend on Gandalf. Gandalf's defeat is profound--the viewer is supposed to be horrified, thinking, "How can this be? This isn't supposed to happen!" However, at this rate, I suspect the viewer may begin to think, "Oh...Gandalf has been defeated again!"

I think you are right, johobbit, when you say that his weakness has become more pronounced in the Hobbit films. Despite scenes in the LotR movies which weakened him as a character, he also had several glorious scenes which showed his strength. Often, his strength comes through his ability to get himself out of a scrape. (I love the tower scene in FotR when he jumps onto the Eagle, thereby using his own resources to get free. I also love the flashbacks in TTT when they show his fight with the Balrog in greater detail. These scenes show his strength as a character--not his weakness.) I would really like to see him rescue himself from the Necromancer. Therefore, I will be quite disappointed if

It's not that I don't like Galadriel. I am interested to see if she shows a warrior side in BotFA -- and I think I may like it. It's just that I don't want to see her character strengthened at Gandalf's expense.

OK, done ranting for a bit

Well said, Lady G!

Gandalf's defeat is profound--the viewer is supposed to be horrified, thinking, "How can this be? This isn't supposed to happen!" However, at this rate, I suspect the viewer may begin to think, "Oh...Gandalf has been defeated again!"

And there is nothing else to add ...

Despite scenes in the LotR movies which weakened him as a character, he also had several glorious scenes which showed his strength. Often, his strength comes through his ability to get himself out of a scrape.

I so appreciate those scenes! But sadly PJ seems inconsistent with how he portrays Gandalf. It's like he wants to showcase Tolkien's Gandalf, but his own demeaned wizard sneaks in there at times.

And hear-hear at your spoiler. I think I just may walk out of the theatre if that occurs.

It's not that I don't like Galadriel.

Rant away: I'm right with ya'!

I can hardly believe there are only just over 4 months before The Battle of the Five Armies releases! Oh, say, I heard someone recently call it The Battle of the Five Battles, wondering how many extra (and unneeded/pointless/useless) skirmishes PJ will insert.

To be honest, I'm not even sure I will go and see it on the big screen. That is my feeling now ... but when it comes down to it, I will probably go once, but certainly not opening day, or maybe even week. I want to hear feedback (yes, including spoilers) from others first, and then go and make up my own mind.

Has anyone seen the teaser trailer preceding a movie yet?

Has anyone seen the teaser trailer preceding a movie yet?

I've heard that it's in front of some showings of Guardians of the Galaxy, but we went to a matinee, so we just saw trailers for Disney movies.

A clip from DoS EE was released a few days ago.
More of this and less boring chase scenes that look like video game footage please. Not that I'm planning on buying it. I have AUJ EE, but I've never bothered to remove the shrink wrap.

Also found this gem yesterday, The Barrel Song from the Rankin/Bass Hobbit with footage from DoS.

Which of course reminded me of the Orcs' song in RotK.

And I recently found a copy of BBC Radio's The J.R.R.Tolkien Collection, for only $36. It includes full-cast dramatizations of The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, Farmer Giles of Ham, Smith of Wooton Major, Leaf by Niggle, The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, and an audio drama about Professor Tolkien. I'm ready for a road trip!

There isn't much need for me to go into the trailer. I see it has already been discussed. I will say that until I read this thread I didn't realize Pippin's song was playing in the background. Also

Dot, I enjoyed the barrel ride video and the orc one. I found the barrel ride video much easier to take with that song in the background than watching it in the movie.

I was thinking about this recently and came here to see if there was a definitive answer. What would have happened had Eowyn (or another human) had picked up the ring from the dead Witch King Nazgul's remains and put it on? The elves still wore their rings and remained unaffected, and at least a few of the Dwarves who still had access to them as well. Would that human have become somehow greater? Or because it had been worn so long by a Nazgul would it have become corrupted over time somehow? Was just curious.

That's a very good question, SL. I think that for the brief period of time between the Witch-king's fall and Sauron's, whoever wore it would have been both greater than before and subject to Sauron's dominance as the other Nazgul were, though its power would have failed with the One's since it was so tightly connected to the One. However, I think it's entirely possible that the ring didn't survive its bearer's death as there wasn't any mention of it in his remains (which doesn't always mean much with Tolkien).

The ring was corrupting the Nazgul, not the other way round. If it had been taken from the Witch King, it would have been ready to corrupt a new bearer, starting by making him (or her) somehow greater.

But I agree that it's possible that the ring may not have survived its bearer's death. I wonder how, though?

The elves still wore their rings and remained unaffected, and at least a few of the Dwarves who still had access to them as well.

The Dwarves' rings, like the Men's rings, were made with Sauron being involved in their making, and thus they were under his dominance. But the Dwarves were more resistant to their rings' (and Sauron's) dominance than Men were.

The Elves' rings, on the other hand, were made without Sauron's involvement, only from his general ring-making lore. Those rings were subject to the One Ring, but not to the Lord of the Rings. When Sauron was not wearing his ring, the Elves could safely wear theirs.

It was pointed out to me that there was no discussion of this bit of marketing for the Hobbit.

Probably because a lot of it can be summed up with, "Oooooooookay..."

However, it did inspire this.

I read the Sil only once and spent most of that time wishing I'd written footnotes as I read . A strong-willed character like Aragorn or what have you would have been able to use the ring to great effect. I know that at the end of RotK it is said (or at least insinuated) that the destruction of the One Ring makes all of the other rings inactive. But I thought Sauron crafted the One Ring after all of the others had been made...right? So how would its destruction result in the deactivation of the others powers? I know this seems like a rather silly question to ask, but I was just curious.

I read the Sil only once and spent most of that time wishing I'd written footnotes as I read .

You should indeed have written notes - and even more, you should have drawn a family tree. To know which Elf is parent, child, sibling, uncle/aunt, nephew/niece or cousin to which of the others, really takes a good tree - or, as in my case, some years of fan fiction RPGing
(The Fin...-named Elves - like Finwe, Fingolfin, Finarfin, Fingon, Finrod - are the most prominent - and confusing - examples )

But I thought Sauron crafted the One Ring after all of the others had been made...right? So how would its destruction result in the deactivation of the others powers? I know this seems like a rather silly question to ask, but I was just curious.

I assume that Sauron knew all along that he would make a Master Ring, and that part of his Ring-lore was to make the other rings vulnerable to what was to come - even those other rings (of the Elves) that were only made with his lore, not with his direct involvement. In the Dwarves' and the Men's rings, his own power was directly involved.

The power of the One Ring was parts of Sauron's own power which he somehow managed to transfer into it, so I would think this is why the powers of all the rings (and Sauron's remaining powers) were connected and would fail when the Master Ring failed.

It was pointed out to me that there was no discussion of this bit of marketing for the Hobbit.

Oh. That thing. My main reaction to it was actually "the Elves are taking over because they can't stand to see Dwarves in the spotlight". All I'm seeing is Elf Army 2.0. And the Galadriel thing. Which I shall not speak of.

The bit of news that I found more interesting is the potential for LotR movie memorabilia at a narrative art museum in Chicago.

A narrative art museum sounds awesome, and LotR bigatures would be the icing on the cake.

And speaking of movie memorabilia, The TCM and Bonhams auction has three LotR items, including Anduril. Definitely too expensive to request as a birthday present.

My thoughts on the newest Hobbit trailer can simply be summed up as this...

If you like the first two movies, you'll probably like the third movie. If you didn't like the first two movies, don't hold out hope for this one.