Why the Hobbit trailer is a test of character

N

News from Bree

Valinor
187873_6425769820_240916847_n.jpg
There are many cool things and great moments in the teaser trailer that finally came out just a week and half ago. But, silly lists aside, there's a lot of interesting stuff at work in this trailer: for what it includes AND for what it omits. One of the things that struck me immediately was the emphasis on character. It's enormous.

There's some justification for that: Jackson and his minions need to introduce a core cast of 15. That's a lot of different people that the audience has to invest in... and differentiate between. (Before you read on, I must warn you: this is inevitably a spoiler-filled discussion)

Thus we have the venerable-looking Balin, brawler Dwalin, the impish Fili, action-dwarf Kili, the accident-prone food-loving Bombur and the regal-looking Thorin. Just to name a few of the company.

On top of this, Jackson deploys the mournful dirge Misty Mountains Cold to emphasise familial bonds, dwarvish clannishness and an intense sense of shared purpose. For effect, it beats anything else in this trailer into the ground.

Still, could you identify each of the different dwarves in a line-up? I tell you honestly, I can't yet... and I'm paying much more attention than a casual fan.

Expect the hard sell on the dwarves to continue right up to December 14, 2012.

To amp this emotional tug, we have returning characters: Frodo, older Bilbo and Gollum as well as Galadriel and Gandalf.

Four of those are our link with the film's lead: the young Bilbo played by Martin Freeman. They are the lenses through which we begin to perceive and understand his personality. That the younger Bilbo so quickly resonates with us is as much the result of our pre-existing investment in those characters as it is due to Freeman's fine acting.

You might wonder, though, where's Saruman? And Elrond?

Well, to answer the first: Saruman immediately introduces complexity. After all, he's the turncoat in Rings. Showing him on the side of good in a half-second snippet in a teaser trailer adds unnecessary complexity bound to confuse the casual viewer.

I fancy Elrond's parts could mostly relate to the White Council and offer similar complexity.

And if you're wondering why there was no glimpse of the Eagles, I reckon it's because the f/x are either still to begin, or incomplete.

Returning characters brings me to my second point.

Consistency is critical​



All this character consistency reinforces the link-back to Jackson's adaptation of the Lord of the Rings.

There's also a consistency in the feel. Could that be why there are so many Hobbiton and Bag End scenes in this teaser? The use of the same text. The textual reinforcement that it's the director of The Lord of the Rings.

There's a certain consistency of lighting too. The scenes we think could be Dol Guldur have a similar light to Osgiliath. Rivendell's light has the same pink-gold sunset look. Seeing Narsil? All about creating consistency.

Because consistency is all about delivering familiarity and comfort. Challenged audiences are unsettled ones. Most people being don't enjoy being unsettled. And though most consider both installations of The Hobbit a surefire hit, the movies will need to sell an awful lot of tickets to cover the truly enormous sum the studios have invested.

And this may allow us to finally venture a tiny bit of extrapolation:
  • Expect the orcs to look similar to those of Moria.
  • Expect the spiders to look similar to Shelob.

We can see this already at work in the resemblance of the Hobbit trolls to the cave troll we saw in the bloody battle over Balin's tomb in The Fellowship of the Ring.

Okay, that was hardly going out on a limb. So here are two bold predictions:
  • The spiders won't talk.
  • Nor will the trolls.

Again, it's about consistency. And, maybe, about sympathy. You don't want your audience feeling too sorry for the bad guys, right?

If you think about it, there's another element from Lord of the Rings that these changes would reinforce. The Shire is bucolic and homely; everywhere else in Middle-earth is grand and epic. Cockney-accented trolls and talking spiders are elements of a whimsical fairy tale, not an epic fantasy.

There's no place for plot in this teaser​



Conversely, teaser time devoted to plot is negligible.

Consider that the mention of the quest is at best oblique: Gandalf and Thorin discuss a dangerous journey, but not a destination.

Consider that there's no mention of the dragon, Smaug, nor of Erebor. Just words on a map.

And consider that the montage of short action scenes seem deliberately compiled to eliminate context. And, again, all the voiceovers -- those of Thorin, Gandalf and Bilbo -- do is reinforce the significant danger of the mysterious journey to come.

These things are not about detailing the course of their Quest. It's all about establishing the heroic protagonists of the journey.

Thirteen very different dwarves drawn together by familial bonds and a common purpose; a reluctant but curious Hobbit; a matchmaking wizard.

There's an exchange between Sam and Faramir in The Two Towers that I was reminded of as I was writing this. It goes as follows:
Sam Gamgee: You took a chance, sir.
Faramir: Did I so?
Sam Gamgee: Yes sir, and showed your quality: the very highest.
Click to expand...

With this teaser, I think Jackson has committed himself similarly. It's a test of character. And on that count, it's looking quite promising so far.
 
I disagree about the lack of talking. I know why you said it, and you could be right. But it's so important that I refuse to believe it. If they don't talk, something has gone seriously wrong. In LOTR PJ didn't make trolls talk because they don't happen to in the book. But orcs do, and sure enough orcs can speak in PJ's LOTR. Same with spiders. Shelob couldn't (or didn't) talk in the book, so she doesn't in the movie. It wouldn't have made sense for them to add lines. However, calling that inconsistency across movies would be calling it inconsistency across the books and we all know that is not the case. Plus, can you imagine the eagles not talking? Wouldn't quite work.
 
I believe they will talk, especially after seeing the emotion in the face of one of the trolls in the trailer, even if it was just a second or two. They're all dressed up as well, and I don't think they'll just be stupid trolls making growling noises.

The spiders probably won't talk but I'm totally ok with that.
 
Last edited:
I think the trolls WILL talk , Or maybe I am just hoping VERY much... LOL Now as far as the spiders and eagles they don't need to talk IMHO the spiders can show emotion just like Shelob did in the LOTR film. You could tell how ticked off she was getting without a single word from her and I am sure the spiders in Mirkwood will be the same, granted Shelob never talked in the book but to bring the hobbit a bit more in line with LOTR they would probably give these spiders the same treatment. The eagle not really necessary either they could show Gandalf off with the lord of the eagles and no words need be said. With Gandalf being Istari I am sure he could understand them and translate or explain what they discussed and it all flows in line with LOTR

Honestly the only animal, other than Smaug of course, I care to see talking is Roac... Who it clearly states in the book spoke in common tongue. but I am sure he'll be made into a carrier pigeon er raven so they don't have to make him talk either. Film is a much different medium than books and they can show what can only be described in a book.
 
I think a fair point that someone else made on these very forums struck me as something and this goes along with the idea of consistancy.

In FOTR, the movie, Bilbo is telling a story to the young hobbit children and he is retelling a bit about the three trolls. In this he mentions how they were arguing over how they were going to cook them, whether they'd turn them on a spit or squish them one by one, etc. This would imply that Bilbo understood just fine what the trolls were saying. If they don't talk in The Hobbit, and then you see the scene in FOTR with Bilbo, one would go, "Wait, they never talked, they just grunted and roared, how in the world would Bilbo know what they were saying?"

In this instance, I think there is a strong case for talking trolls, if by nothing else that one scene in FOTR. As the same person, I believe, pointed out as well, just because the trolls roared in that scene doesn't mean they didn't talk. If they're being attacked, they would logically roar and not go "Aaah! Oi! It's dwarves!" I hope I, and others like me, are right.
 
Yeah that! Bilbo's story demands talking trolls.

@xxxyyy who says, "[Talking trolls] would totally ruin the movies for me." Utter hyperbole. Folks who say that haven't seen the movie yet. I think nearly anyone would admit that the movie, taken in its entirety, can very possibly change minds, no matter which way it goes. Except for that whole axe-in-the-dwarf-skull dealie. [evil]
 
Last edited:
Yes - talking animals would, like, totally pull me out of the reality of the movie. Green ghosts swarming over a battlefield, giant elephants, horses-as-waves, balrogs - no problem with them - but talking animals - no way.

*sarcasm ends*

Depending on how it is handled, Roac could talk. Heck, plenty of parrots and other birds can 'talk' after a fashion. He doesn't need to have clear diction a la Douglas Rain, after all.

That said, Bilbo could have been exaggerating for the children using artistic licence. Personally, I do hope the trolls talk and the spiders hiss in common tongue (translated for us automagically by the wonders of cinema into English - or whatever language you happen to be watching the film in). The troll's names need not be given specifically, which would lessen sensibilities over their fairly common-sounding names.

The tra-la-lalling on the other hand... definitely out.... although even that could work if the tone when used against the dwarves is mocking rather than gay.
 
Last edited:
I agree that Bilbo said the trolls talked, therefore they talk. We've already seen a couple of kinds of trolls; here's a kind that can talk. The trolls who managed the Black Gate, for example, were working the day shift, which this lot cannot. But this lot can talk.
 
If you pause the trailer during the troll attack sequence you can see their mouths and teeth. The design is human-like and entirely appropriate for talking. Similarly the clothing is far more human than LotR troll designs. So I'm pretty sure they will be talking.

We can be sure that spiders and wargs will not be talking, and similarly Beorn's pets will not be waitering. It's Roac and the thrush where talking creature issues get complicated...
 
While you make good points about why the trailer was effective despite its limited scope (if you really think about it it's almost entirely from about 4 different scenes, and the rest is constrained to people walking around Middle Earth), I think the simplest explanation is that they used what they could from what they've filmed so far.

This was a ridiculously early trailer for the stage of filming, and we saw a HUGE amount of footage - but notice most of it was as special-effects free as possible (We saw... half a second of trolls and Gollum, and recycled Elven backgrounds) - those kind of things take a lot of time to render and process, and what we saw was likely barely done in time to get that trailer out.
 
i admit i can't remember well which animals were able to talk in the hobbit, but i think there were the eagles and those animals at beorns home.

Well, we know that Radagast will have a bigger role in the Hobbit movies. He doesn't appear in the book, so why add him? Just have to have ANOTHER wizard? Just to please fans? I don't think so. They only reason to add him is:

Radagast loves birds and animals and he talks to them, understands what they say. So he could be the interpreter for the other guys. Personally i think speaking animals with humanized moving mouths look silly, even if it's fantasy. So they could just do their natural "sounds" and Radagast translates it in "english".
 
The problems with talking creatures in The Hobbit are I think about how convincing having highly intelligent animals appears in a more adult orientated Hobbit, rather than what language the creatures are speaking necessarily. So if spiders and wargs started having sophisticated conversations beyond locating their next meal, even if communicated in hisses and howls, it would clash with the tone of the films for me.

The talking Thrush is clearly the most significant time this problem arises, as Smaug's death is a central climax in the story. The most likely way it will happen is in trusty C3P0-R2D2 translation style:

Thrush: tweeet- tweeet- tweet
Bard: Smaug has a weakness?
Thrush: tweeet- tweeet- tweet
Bard: A hole in his left breast? Thank you good thrush...

This solution would be preferable to the thrush speaking in English or having sub-titles (dreadful!). However this solution still seems rather childish and a deus ex machina for such a key part of the story. Bard has no magic, and thrushes (unlike ravens) are not particularly intelligent birds in real life.

I'd like the writers to make a change to the story, where when Bilbo cajoles Smaug into rolling over a dragon scale falls off. Bilbo gives the scale to the Thrush to communicate the dragon's weakness to Bard with no bird-talking involved. I think this would suit the more adult tone of The Hobbit films. It would require an earlier scene linking the Thrush to Bard ("in the time of Dale we used these birds as messengers..."), as I think would the earlier Bard-translation approach.
 
The talking Thrush is clearly the most significant time this problem arises, as Smaug's death is a central climax in the story. The most likely way it will happen is in trusty C3P0-R2D2 translation style:

Thrush: tweeet- tweeet- tweet
Bard: Smaug has a weakness?
Thrush: tweeet- tweeet- tweet
Bard: A hole in his left breast? Thank you good thrush...

This solution would be preferable to the thrush speaking in English or having sub-titles (dreadful!). However this solution still seems rather childish and a deus ex machina for such a key part of the story. Bard has no magic, and thrushes (unlike ravens) are not particularly intelligent birds in real life.
Click to expand...


Well, that was already Tolkien's solution, although he handled it more skillfully.

I'd like the writers to make a change to the story, where when Bilbo cajoles Smaug into rolling over a dragon scale falls off. Bilbo gives the scale to the Thrush to communicate the dragon's weakness to Bard with no bird-talking involved. I think this would suit the more adult tone of The Hobbit films. It would require an earlier scene linking the Thrush to Bard ("in the time of Dale we used these birds as messengers..."), as I think would the earlier Bard-translation approach.
Click to expand...


There's no need for any change. Middle-earth exists in a more magical time than the modern world; the ability to understand bird-speak is a symbol of Bard's heritage and of his suitability to be the king of Dale.
 
The Hobbit IS a whimsical fairy tale.

The trolls and the spiders should both talk.

I'm fine with the spiders looking like Shelob, because Shelob was all wrong. She should have been a monster. Not a spider.

And why shouldn't we feel sorry for the bad guys? It would make them more "complex" and less clear-cut villains. Isn't "complexity" what was Jackson was trying to accomplish by turning Aragorn into a weenie? And making Faramir susceptible to the Ring's temptation instead of steadfastly resistant as in the book?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top