‘The Hobbit’ Trailer Is Here!

Published 2 years ago by

hobbit trailer The Hobbit Trailer Is Here!

It’s been a tumultuous trek for The Hobbit over the past two years. The project was slowly but steadily coming together under the guiding hand of Guillermo del Toro – that is until MGM’s financial blues forced the filmmaker off the project in 2010. Even after Lord of the Rings helmer Peter Jackson finally stepped in to take del Toro’s spot, union issues, funding concerns, and health problems threatened to derail the cinematic return to J.R.R. Tolkien’s Middle-Earth.

Fortunately, those problems were all eventually resolved and the majority of production on The Hobbit has now been complete – enough so as to allow for the release of an actual teaser trailer for the Rings trilogy semi-prequel.

For those who’ve never read Tolkien’s source material, here is an official synopsis for Jackson’s film(s):

“The Hobbit” follows the journey of title character Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), who is swept into an epic quest to reclaim the lost Dwarf Kingdom of Erebor, which was long ago conquered by the dragon Smaug. Approached out of the blue by the wizard Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen), Bilbo finds himself joining a company of thirteen dwarves led by the legendary warrior, Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage). Their journey will take them into the Wild; through treacherous lands swarming with Goblins and Orcs, deadly Wargs and Giant Spiders, Shapeshifters and Sorcerers.

Now check out the official Hobbit teaser trailer and poster below:

-


-

CLICK FOR LARGER VERSION AND OUR COMPLETE PHOTO GALLERY FOR THE HOBBIT

The Hobbit Poster 280x414 The Hobbit Trailer Is Here!-

There’s a pleasantly welcoming and enchanting air to this trailer, which teases yet another imaginative adventure through Middle-Earth. Not only do new characters like Thorin Oakenshield and his fellow dwarfs look like fun (not to mention, possess excellent singing voices), it’s also all the more enjoyable to see familiar faces like that of Gandalf and Lady Galadriel (Cate Blanchett) – not to mention, objects such as the shattered remains of Narsil and Bilbo’s trusty blade, Sting. Plus, the brief glance at the famous encounter between Bilbo and Gollum (Andy Serkis) near the end is enough to send shivers down your spine.

We’re sure we speak for many Lord of the Rings fans when we say: It’s good to be back on Middle-Earth.

-

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey arrives in 2D and 3D theaters around the U.S. on December 14th, 2012.

The Hobbit: There and Back Again is scheduled to hit U.S. theaters a year later on December 13th, 2013.

Source: iTunes Movie Trailers

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:
TAGS: lord of the rings, the hobbit

133 Comments

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

  1. I had a freaking nerdgasim at the end of the trailer! Its going to be an omg year waiting for this to come out!

  2. Looks cool…
    Not really one of my “most anticipated movies for 2012″, but this trailer did manage to push it up a bit.

    I’ll be at the theater (maybe not on opening night though).

    • calm down,we know that your´re most anticipated for the avengers,but this movie is another dimension,it´s the creme de la creme of fantasy and adventure movies.

  3. Here’s my question. If the Hobbit is the shortest of Tolkiens books why does it get two parts, but the books of the LOTR trilogy which are actually two books each and yet they get crammed into one movie. Definetly not fair.

    I would have rather seen the LOTR trilogy as six movies and the hobbit as one. Anyone else feel the same? Or is it just me.

    • I’m sure it’s not only you. I don’t feel exactly the same. I think the length of LOTR was fine. I enjoyed the extended editions but think they made the right decision with the movie cuts.

      With the Hobbit, I think they’re going too long and too serious. To me it was a more naive and innocent adventure and would have worked with a two hour movie. But as I feared, and as it appears, they are going to cram it full of allusions to LOTR and add all kinds of supplementary material that wasn’t in the Hobbit, and only alluded to in the LOTR books. And it looks like they aren’t passing on any opportunities to add some heavy-handed gravity to the script (insert one raised eyebrow here).

      I was kind of hoping that Guillermo Del Toro would make a simple fun movie and give it a different look and feel. So, no, I don’t think LOTR should be longer, but I do think the Hobbit should be shorter (no pun intended).

      • guil.del.torro. is a good director,but his movies are a little bit too trashy. this is jacksons movie,only he can handle it. not del torro or spielberg or anyone else.and you see it in the trailer it has it own magic and not the copying of l.o.t.r!

        • “Trashy?” I don’t know about that. His movies always look fantastic even with very low budgets. Like Jackson, he has a good understanding of special effects and knows how to get the most out of them, how to use them, and he’s able to weave them into the look of the rest of the movie. Other than Pan’t Labyrinth and the Devil’s Backbone, his movies can be perhaps B-movieish. But like I said, they have great style. I would have loved to see what he’d do with the Hobbit and a big budget. I did see his name in the credits, so perhaps they are keeping a lot of the designs he participated in and oversaw.

          I love Jackson’s style, but I get the sense that he doesn’t edit as much as he used to.

          And BTW I have no illusions. The way they are doing this movie will ensure huge BO. The audience will love all the LOTR similarities and “road signs” to that plot. I’ll still see it and I might like it. I’m just suggesting that there could have been a different flavor to this film. The ring being first and foremost. To Bilbo, and to readers of the Hobbit, the ring is simply a magic ring that makes you invisible. I would have preferred if they would leave it that way, instead of an ominous signal of things to come.

    • I think what you said about LOTR being “crammed” is the reason they’re doing The Hobbit in two parts. To get as much of the book in as they can.

      • The Hobbit can really be divided up into two movies because there are two sections of the book. I only finished the first part where he fought the dragon and didn’t read the rest because I thought, “Well, he beat a dragon what’s more to say.”

  4. this is without question the film i’m most excited for in 2012!

  5. The Hobbit gets two parts, because not only are they dealing with Bilbo’s adventures and the adventures of the thirteen dwarves, they are dealing with the side/sub plot, of Gandalf and the White Council dealing with the threat of the Necromancer in Dol Guldur (Hill of Sorcery) in the most Southern part of Mirkwood Forest (the forest ruled by Legolas’s father Thranduil).

  6. I don’t remember any of that being in the hobbit. Guess I’ll have to read it again.

  7. What’s also funny is that in the opening scenes of the fellowship of the ring that they had Ian holm as a younger version of bilbo and now they’ve recast with a younger actor as bilbo.

    • Any chance he will “Lucas” the beginning of LOTR and insert the new Bilbo for a future release?

  8. This trailer makes it look like the creators of this film read the cliff notes of The Hobbit, sucked out the seriousness of the story, and injected a Disney dose of goofiness. And Thorin Oakenshield is a dwarf, not a six foot tall, skinny Aragorn wannabe with a bit of stubble on his face.

    • Turncoat! You negatively commented on my post then post something similar? ><

      To answer your concern though, the Dwarves in the Hobbit were portrayed as bumbling, inept fools. Jackson however has decided to interject a more serious tone to them.

      To Jacksons credit, after writing LotR, Tolkien did regret the way he treated the Dwarves in the Hobbit and wished he could have gone back and made them a bit more competent.

      • @ Mongoose – I was actually responding to foopher’s comment that defended the physical appearance of the dwarves as being necessary distinguishing characteristics. I was trying to highlight the fact that distinguishing characteristics need not be limited to physical appearance alone. I suppose I should have been a bit more clear and explanatory. My fault there.

        In film I understand that the audience needs to be able to quickly differentiate the characters, and with this many dwarves that’s probably not an easy task, but these seem a bit over caricatured. Subtleties like clothing, personal items, age, and good acting can go a long way.

        As far as your comments go, I agree with them 100%.

        • I was just giving you a hard time since your original comments were at worst neutral. If I had really been upset I would have used much stronger language than turncoat ;)

          And we are on the same page if not the same paragraph on that page. The sad thing is Jackson had, right there in the books, perfect ways to make them look different without going so overboard. Each had a specific cloak color along with some other defining characteristics like musical instruments, unusually large nose and so forth. He could have EASILY worked those features into more realistic clothing and dialed back the exaggeration/perversions to come up with something that fit the spirit of the book while making them visually different enough.

  9. @ Particle

    That’s exactly what I thought after watching it!

  10. my precious, got to see Golloum again

  11. I have to see this only for Golloum and the singing was great lol.

  12. This is a teaser trailer, people, there’s no reason to start banging down Jackson’s door saying the dwarves don’t have character and there’s no action. I could say the same things about the DKR teaser.

    I for one am pumped. After watching the Extended Editions over the last couple weeks and starting to watch the bonus features again, I really appreciate Jackson’s style and use of practical effects wherever possible. This looks like they traveled back in time with new equipment to keep filming on the standing sets. I’m a huge fan of continuity, and it’s nice to see the attention to detail seen here.

    • Aren’t the extended editions great? They were on Encore the other day and I have throughly enjoyed them much more. Especially with Borimir’s(sp?)character getting more screen time and fleshing out, along with Aragon. I like continuity too so it will be great to see this.

  13. I think it’s a real treat for Tolkien fans. We’re not getting one Hobbit movie, we’re getting two movies about the Hobbit, with parts of unfinished tales/simarillion/lotr appendices and connectors to lotr. And for those few who’ve never read the books, only saw the films, it seems very introductory, the connectors are easter eggs for the literary fans and a guidepost for the others.

    The trailer is smartly targeting both fans of the books and movies.

    • Funny you should use the wording “a real treat for Tolkien fans” because the real fans are up in arms about what Jackson has done to the Dwarves. They look nothing like the book descriptions and some don’t even look like Dwarves!

      These movies will be great for those without any real knowledge of the source material but for those that do it’s an insult.

      • Such minor details, I’m sure it’ll be fine in the end. In Jackson you can trust.

        • minor….MINOR? We are talking about 13 characters that the majority of both films will focus on. While Bilbo is the main character, the Dwarves run a close #2 as a group.

          If you want to continue drinking the koolaide Jackson is passing out I guess that’s your choice but I never personally just blindly trust in anything. From what I have seen of the Dwarves thus far my distinct lack of trust is justified.

          • The dwarves are not entirely what I expected either, I think there is DelToro influence there, but I can live with it. Good to see the mongoose on its hind legs and bearing its fangs in defence of tolkien.

            • @ Pitt Man……I……… o.O …….gurrr.

              /bares teeth and then scurries back into the shadows.

          • I seriously do not understand this attitude from the “true fans.”

            First of all, the only thing any of us know about the Dwarves right now is how they LOOK (and, yes, how they sing). To say that Jackson has totally ignored and betrayed the source material simply because Thorin doesn’t have a long beard and a pointy blue hat is shallow and absurd. If they changed Thorin’s attitude, demeanor, the main content of his dialog, etc., THEN there would be cause to accuse Jackson of betraying the source material. But you simply cannot tell ANY of that from the promotional material thus far. All you can do is complain about the length of Thorin’s beard. And you’re welcome to do so. Just please keep your complaints to a reasonable level.

            Second, why are the “purests” getting so upset about all the extra material that was not in The Hobbit itself? Do you folks realize that Jackson is actually just giving us a film version of Tolkien’s own wrirtings, from Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, the Appendices, etc??? None of those things will ever be made into their own movies. We should be thanking Jackson and Co. for giving us more Tolkien, not demanding less and pretending it’s because we like Tolkien so much!

            • About the Dwarves……You make it sound trivial but I assure you the way they look is JUST as important as dialog and screen presence. You need to have all three to pull it off convincingly and do justice to the book. So to be missing literally 1/3 of that by completely changing they way they look in neither shallow or absurd. We had scant enough descriptive material to work from as it was but to strip all the “Dwarfy” qualities from many of the Dwarves goes well beyond acceptable to us “true fans”.

              Some of the Dwarves actually do look good, others are really pushing it but to blatantly turn one into an Emo Elf and the King into a Pirate Klingon just so the girls had some characters to swoon over is just not right.

              And I consider myself a purist but I also think adding “The Quest of Eredor” to the story was a brilliant idea. Tolkien DID actually write it so there is no reason why it shouldn’t be used. It will help tie the Hobbit into the greater tapestry of Middle Earth and the later books. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Quest_of_Erebor

              • Mongoose, I keep hearing this same refrain, but I still don’t quite get it. Can you explain why their appearance is so important? Dwarves are short, generally “burly” in build and have beards. But beyond that, what else is so essential to “dwarfishness” that any of the actors in the film are lacking? I don’t recall Tolkien writing anywhere that all Dwarves must have beards to their belts and pointing Santa hats in order to be true Dwarves. And I for one am thankful that there aren’t simply 13 versions of Gimli running around with different colored hats. That would be cinematically dull.

                Also, where is this idea coming from that Jackson is specifically trying to appeal to females by turning characters into “heartthrobs”? I really don’t think that this “pirate Klingon” Thorin is much of a heart throb anyway (unless you are the type of girl who already likes LOTR, so…)

                And for the record, I love that Thorin looks like a Klingon (but I’m a Trekkie).

                • /sigh I have been over this before on other sites at different times but……..The things we KNOW about Dwarves; short, stocky (with a tendency towards rotund), big noses and prominent beards. Those are well established facts. Dwarves are also VERY prideful and protective of their beards so doing something like cutting it short or partially shaving it off would be akin to a mark of shame, something you would do to a Dwarf to strip them of their pride. So to have many of the Dwarves with cropped beards, van dykes, mutton chops, just a mustache or silly little side tufts is lie having a band of misfits and outcasts that would be ashamed to be seen in Dwarf society. There is a good reason why the two biggest clans are named Longbeard (of which Thorin is the king no less) and Firebeard.

                  Here is an excerpt from the hobbit: ” Each one of his folk was clad in a hauberk of steel mail that hung to his knees, and his legs were covered with hose of a fine and flexible metal mesh…. In battle they wielded heavy two-handed mattocks; but each of them had also a short broad sword at his side and a round shield slung at his back. Their beards were forked and plaited and thrust into their belts. Their caps were of iron and they were shod with iron, and their faces were grim.”

                  This is Thorin talking about the Dwarves at the battle of 5 armies. It doesn’t qualify the description with “some”, “a few” or even “a majority”. It just says “they” which generally means all of them.

                  Also confused about the pointed Santa hat thing.

                  The worst offenders though are Thorin and Kili (I mistakenly used Fili above, sorry) who look NOTHING like Dwarves.

                  Thorin, king of the Dwarves and head of the Longbeard Clan should have, well a LONG BEARD! He is also old, 195 to be exact. had a skyblue cloak with silver tassels and played the harp. Where is ANY of that in this incarnation? Instead we get a young, tall Klingon, with a thin roman nose. He could pass for a Human if you didn’t know he was supposed to be a freakin’ Dwarf.

                  Kili, (2nd youngest of the group at 77, had a yellow beard, played the fiddle, wore a blue cloak and had sharp eyesight) Instead he looks more like a short “emo” elf, i.e. very thin (or a wannabe human Ranger ala Strider…note the bow and arrows) with no more than a couple weeks of beard growth.

                  These are the worst two offenders. I could go on and on (like Fili is described as having the longest nose of the group which he clearly doesn’t) but there are others that have similarly undwarfy characteristics and have nothing in common with the book descriptions.

                  If you don’t “get” why looking the part is so important then I really can’t explain it to you. If they don’t look like the Dwarves from the books then why even call them a Dwarf of Middle Earth? The funny thing is ALL of the Dwarves from LotR DID have long, full beards. Jackson got it right for LotR but then did this for The Hobbit. Now I’m all for making each look unique and distinctive but there are ways to do it without stepping so heavily on the canon (and in some places grinding it into the ground).

                  The most interesting thing however is Jackson felt that he had to give all the Dwarves big ears, something that is CLEARLY not part of any canon. I guess if they can’t have a big nose then ears are the next best thing? /rolls eyes

                  As to the heartthrob aspect…….Have you even seen Kili? You tell me why Jackson would transform a Dwarf into an Aragorn wannabe? It makes no sense otherwise. And why change Thorin so dramatically if not to make him more appealing to female viewers? He should be a grizzled, old, longbearded Dwarf with grey hair NOT a Klingon in the prime of their life.

                  • Mongoose, the problem is that none of that amounts to the dirt-pounding destruction of the Canon that you seem to think. I will grant that Thorin not having a long beard is a problem. He should. But that’s really the only major issue, and by your comments I somehow doubt that you would be happy if they kept Thorin looking just as he does but added a long beard.

                    Just a couple other comments. Your point about the beards actually doesn’t make sense. Dwarves take pride in their beards, yes. But who says that means every beard must therefore be long? It makes just as much sense within the confines of Tolkien’s Canon that they would take pride in their beards by giving them interesting and ornate styles (like Mr. Mutton chops). They aren’t all called Longbeards, after all.

                    Kili…eh, ok, I can see your point. But it’s worth noting that Jackson and co. purposfully gave the two youngest Dwarves tiny beards because of their age. That at least shows that they do in fact have Tolkien’s understanding of Dwarves in the front of their minds, even if they aren’t executing it perfectly to everyone’s wishes.

                    • If it were just me maybe but there are a lot of people who feel as I do. Numerous LotR forums were outraged at the initial photos as were many FB walls. And while it might not smash the whole of the canon like say XMFC did, it most certainly does for the established and iconic Dwarf look. If they were minor characters I wouldn’t care so much but they are going to be prominent characters throughout the movies.

                      About Thorin, no a long beard wouldn’t be enough because he is supposed to be a grizzled OLD king that is reaching the end of his years, he should have at least SOME grey hair, a wrinkled face, bulbous nose, etc. Instead he is barely more than a human with a short beard and prosthetic nose. Freeze the trailer at 48 secs and then at 1:00 and tell me he looks even remotely like the book describes him let alone a Dwarf!

                      About Dwarf beards…..who’s to say that a Dwarf beard should be long? Um that would be Tolkien, you know, the person who WROTE the books and virtual mountains of background material. Jackson got that which is why EVERY dwarf seen in LotR had a long full beard. From the 7 Dwarf Lords holding up the rings and Gimli to the representatives at the council of the ring http://www.amagpiesnest.com/a/p_characters-actors/prologue_ringbearers/dwarves/dwarves.htm and even the description I JUST BARELY gave above straight out of the hobbit. It says “they” meaning all had beards they tucked into their belts. A whole ARMY of long bearded Dwarves seems pretty telling to me.

                      A long, full beard is a status symbol so to cut it is to be without pride. Even partially cutting it invalidates that concept. You decorate, weave, adorn, plait or other similar things but you do not cut them (at least severely. I can see trimming the ends but that’s about it)

                      Over and above all that however, I can handle a short beard. That alone wouldn’t have been game breaking for me because some of the Dwarves with short beards at least look like Dwarves (thinking specifically of Dori) but when you add in the likes of Thorin, Fili, Kili, Bofur and Ori’s looks it is just too much that is wrong. NONE of them really look like Dwarves. Thorin and Kili are the worst offenders though.

                      You are also mistaking “youngest” with actually being adolescent, which neither Kili and Fili are (ages 77 and 72 respectively). By human terms they are about 23-24 which is plenty of time to grow a full beard. I would even accept Fili’s somewhat short beard to be age appropriate but he is supposed to be 5 years OLDER than his cousin who can only manage a couple weeks growth? (in human terms) Come on. Plus both at supposed to be blonde so Kili having black hair is a big deviation.

                      If you freeze the trailer at 38 secs you will see Kili. I’m hard pressed to see even a hint of Dwarf about him. He just looks like a short Human to me.

                      I’m sure overall the films and story will be excellent but seeing these Dwarves for me will be a continual thorn in my side. It would be similar to having Frodo wearing a pink vest through the LotR. Not really appropriate but the story is still great, right?

          • It’s a TWO minute trailer for crying out loud, mongoose! How about we wait until we see some more before you go trashing the film. I am probably looking forward to this more than TDKR.

            • Andy, you have obviously missed all the video blogs. One of them dealt specifically with the Dwarves so we HAVE gotten a good long look at them. And I’m not trashing the film, only the decision to change the Dwarves so drastically from the source material.

              • Mongoose, your Tolkien passion is appreciable but I think a little misplaced. The style of movie that Jackson is creating demands this type of character manipulation. He is making a movie for the masses, not the purists. Right or wrong the characters have to be relevant, entertaining, and marketable.

                • Demands? Hardly. So it was required that they turn Thorin into a Klingon and Kili into a human ranger? It was REALLY necessary?

                  He could have easily manipulated the characters while still staying within the bounds of what is considered a Dwarf. Jackson proved with LotR that you CAN make movies for both the masses and purists but what you are telling me though is he basically failed because he couldn’t do that here.

                  • I must disagree with your LOTR statement, I do recall many a purist tearing the movies apart. Whether it was the changes to the story line or how the elves were portrayed.
                    My 10 dollars says that Thorin and Kili will be two of them most popular amongst the masses . . .
                    I would love to see an actual Hobbit made for children as the book was intended for one day. Then we can have your fat, bearded Dwarves aplenty :p

                    • Well there is purist and then there’s the unreasonable fanatic. I had a friend who was the latter and was outraged with all the things that were cut/missing. I was admittedly disappointed myself BUT I fully understood why most of the changes were made. To fully portray LotR would have taken 2-3 times as long which is completely unreasonable.

                      However……in LotR, despite storyline hacking and so forth, the Elves looked like Elves, Dwarves like Dwarves, Hobbits like Hobbits, etc……THAT is the one thing I cannot say for The Hobbit and many of these Dwarves. The changes made were wholly unnecessary and do not follow the books in the least. THAT is what I have a problem with.

                  • wow, some really interesting point made by all in this whole tread. Hard to decide whats right or wrong but do agree that the dwarves have been altered in a sense from the classic descriptions in the books. Is that a real problem? Idk for purists undoubtedly yes but for general audiences (and lets be real this is a movie for the masses) the changes make sense. In books, you get asense of these characters over time, you come to understand them and see them in your mind and as such u formaulate your own opinions on looks etc so blue cloak etc become enough because i you get much more info on who they are, what they think etc. In film, that luxury is not there. The audience is passive and must be shown these differences, must be made to understand that in a realitevely short amount of time who these dwarves are, they must be made to be able to differentiate them and lastly to care about what happens to them. No small feat. As such the looks to these characters mut be aligned with their personalities/competencie, yes even resorting to stereotypes/expectations of a general audience. Example: thorin – strong, vibrant, respected, competent, born leader. You get one look at him and thats what u see (ok to some klingon lol). The twelves others play to this as well. Kili is made to look young to portray his inexperience, his role as a rookie (regardless of if hes actually in his 70s).
                    Right or wrong it comes down to creating an instant connection/understanding to these various characters using the visual cues of their appearance. If they were all old and grizzled and long bearded then just playing a harp and having a blue cloak just wouldnt be enough to project/portray to an audience what that individual is all about. in a book it works, in a movie not so much, in a character story perhaps, but this is an adventure/milieu story and so characterization much be quickly established for everything else to follow and work.

  14. It’s funny. Most (95%) of movies that come out the whole year, I wouldn’t pay one cent to watch. However, the 5% that I look forward to… I’m talking TDKR, Avengers (The equivalent when I was a kid was like, E.T. or Star Wars), well I’d pay a lot. If it’s 5, 10, 15, 20 bucks who cares, I wade through the sludge of movie mud all year and find maybe 3 or 4 decent movies. I’d drop a lot more for a really good movie, like I hope the Hobbit will be. Studios listening? It don’t have to be 3d to make a profit.

  15. Personally, I think the timing on the release of this movie sucks. I’m only going to have one full week to watch it before the earth ends on 12/21/12.

    That music is unbelievable. I can’t wait for this one!

  16. We’re sure we speak for many Lord of the Rings fans when we say: It’s good to be back on Middle-Earth

    You got that right, Sandy. I’ll have to wait till I get home to listen to it; I just played the trailer without the sound (at work currently). The scenery and effects are just what I expect from Jackson.

    Is it just me or does technological advancement not exist in Middle Earth? :-)

    • LOL Technological advancement part was funny. Well, to answer ur question, you may be right. :)

      • It was meant to be funny, but I have thought about it; look at what they used when they first fought Sauron, when Esildor (spelling) defeated him and took the ring? After he was killed, the ring was lost for thousands of years. In LotR, the same weapondry, same wagons, everything, was the same from thousands of years ago. Nothing wrong with it, I just found it amusing.

        • true however if u think about it our world isnt that much differnt we had the wheel and sword for over 3000 years and dint change much whos to say that in another 3000 years the people of middle earth wont be using star ships besides our world was different as we had not found all the land masses and we increased our technology to find more new places and to get around them, the people of middle earth already know all the land masses so its all the same nothing to strive for so there tech stays the same i would say there about a 1000 years behind us.

  17. This should have been done first, alot of this will just be redone form the sidebar of LOTR trilogy. We already know what happens prior to this, well for those who never read the books. Seems to be a bit of a waste to make these.

    • I think they did want to do this first, but the rights were tied up. So they did LOTR which wasn’t considered as viable as the Hobbit at the time. Notice there are three movie studio logos attached to this trailer. Even after production started there were legal battles. That’s why Del Toro stepped down (or that’s the story anyway).

  18. Yeah, I have absolutly no complaints :). Looks awesome.

  19. I personally do not think that any sequels or reboots should be made to the LOR franchise, simply because the franchise is perfect and ended on the highest note as it possibly could- winning best picture at the Academy awards.

    Nevertheless, this teaser trailer definitely did look very good and of course drew my attention. I don’t doubt that the films will be good, but people will undoubtedly compare these to the first 3, which of course were on a grander scale, as the movies had a much more compelling and powerful (important story). As long as people drift away from the comparisons I am sure that they will enjoy these films as well.

    Breaking up the movies into two books? Yeah the book is short, but there is also a lot of content to it. i think that a 3 hour movie would have sufficed, but splitting it up into 2 21/2 hr movies could work because I am sure that there will be additional story lines (that are not in the book) added to the movie.

  20. The song they’re singing is terrible! Kate Blanchette’s heroine has got much older but Gandalf looks the same.

    • Are you serious? The music gave me goosebumps!

      • um that song was written by Tolkien himself. you sir suck donkey c0ck

        • rofl

    • Shush, shushkka! :)

  21. cant wait to see gollum again

  22. Along with TDKR this is my most anticipated movie of 2012. I wasn’t expecting a trailer yet so this was a treat. I can’t wait to see Middle Earth again. And I will be seeing this in 3D. If it was being done by anyone else I would be nervous but Jackson and his team at Weta have broken new ground on the technology and are the leaders of the format.

  23. Epic!

  24. is it still going to be in a two part series or did that idea happily die out?

    also anyone know if a game will be made like the LOTR games by EA?

    • I know for sure they’re doing LEGO LOTR and The Hobbit and will release them to coincide with the release of the Hobbit Part 1 and 2.

  25. I can’t wait to see Beorn the shape shifter!

  26. hell of a teaser trailer! lol, i cannot wait!

  27. Should be one of the most anticipated movies of the year!

  28. good trailer..i realize it’s just a teaser but i would have liked to have seen the dragon if only for a split second

  29. Sorry, Avengers, sorry Dark Knight Rises, but The Hobbit will be the official big movie event of 2012. Just wish Peter Jackson could’ve directed Man Of Steel or Superman Returns for that matter