The Hobbit

[X]

I'm in. Hell the trilogy even with the extended stuff didn't cover a fraction of what could be covered and told well. Marketing wise, the reason movies are less than two hours are because you can have more showings each day. I would rather people write to the story than to the two hour run time that's expected for any movie that is made. many films can be told in 2 hours. Some films are padded to make the magical run time, and some are destroyed in making cuts to hit the two hourish window.

Abyss
Dances with wolves
LOTR
Dune
Bladerunner

All are films off the top of my head that would have delivered a superior product of the story wasn't left on the cutting room floor due to time restraints.

I've traveled with PJ since Dead/Alive and I'm more than happy to walk an extra three or four hours with him.

[moyer777]

so looking forward to these movies!  All THREE of them!  SWEEEEEET!

[QuadShot]

I'm in. Hell the trilogy even with the extended stuff didn't cover a fraction of what could be covered and told well. Marketing wise, the reason movies are less than two hours are because you can have more showings each day. I would rather people write to the story than to the two hour run time that's expected for any movie that is made. many films can be told in 2 hours. Some films are padded to make the magical run time, and some are destroyed in making cuts to hit the two hourish window.

Abyss
Dances with wolves
LOTR
Dune
Bladerunner

All are films off the top of my head that would have delivered a superior product of the story wasn't left on the cutting room floor due to time restraints.

I've traveled with PJ since Dead/Alive and I'm more than happy to walk an extra three or four hours with him.

You know Chris, I agree with you. I would much rather sit through a well made 3 hour movie than a crappy 1 and a half hour movie. If the story lends itself to it, DO IT. Don't take a story that NEEDS the extra time, cut it just to make a buck and now it makes not a lick of sense, and try to sell it as an epic. If Jackson feels the story would be served better by making it a triology, I'll be there....

[Bryancd]

^Exactly. All this concern and speculation that for some reason the film is going to be boring and drag on are completely unfounded based on what this team has done. Why assume this will be any different?

[Ktrek]

^Exactly. All this concern and speculation that for some reason the film is going to be boring and drag on are completely unfounded based on what this team has done. Why assume this will be any different?

Well, have you read the Lord of the Rings trilogy? Have you read the Hobbit? Now with LOTR there was more than enough material to fill three movies. The Hobbit's content can't even come close to equaling the content of one of LOTR books, even if they use the appendices. I just cannot picture how they can expand the story enough for three movies. Like I said I'll go see them because of his work on LOTR but I am skeptical and have my reservations.

Kevin

[Bryancd]

I disagree that there is not sufficient original as well as new material which they can add. Why is that so hard to see? They have said they are using a lot of different stuff. These films in their extended editions were fantastic and still never included all the books, this is an extended edition of the Hobbit with new material as well. I don;t see the problem with that from a great story standpoint I can understand if some people have a draconian view of the material and feel anything outside the book is off limits might feel that way, but to suggest, sight unseen, that the additional material will be bad is completely unfounded.

[X]

^Exactly. All this concern and speculation that for some reason the film is going to be boring and drag on are completely unfounded based on what this team has done. Why assume this will be any different?

Well, have you read the Lord of the Rings trilogy? Have you read the Hobbit? Now with LOTR there was more than enough material to fill three movies. The Hobbit's content can't even come close to equaling the content of one of LOTR books, even if they use the appendices. I just cannot picture how they can expand the story enough for three movies. Like I said I'll go see them because of his work on LOTR but I am skeptical and have my reservations.

Kevin

You're comparing apples to oranges with that. LOTR fit as three movies because they made them fit as three movies by cutting so much material and creative editing to jump over things if they could. Those movies were chopped to hell.

Hobbit by itself has a 320 page count. There are abut 1100 pages in the entire LOTR trillogy and 654 minutes for the runtime of the extended movies.

I was doing more research to add the apendices count and found this:

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/22204/the-hobbit-just-what%E2%80%99s-in-the-appendices

[Ktrek]

I appreciate you sharing the link X but the book page count is irrelevant as a factor because the Hobbit is in a much larger typeface than LOTR trilogy. If the trilogy was in the same typeface it would probably be twice as many pages. I read the Hobbit in a few nights out loud to my daughter years ago and several times to myself in an evening.  Each volume of LOTRs took me a couple of weeks worth of evenings to get through. So, obviously there is some huge differences. The Hobbit is more of a children's book and LOTR is more adult level.

Kevin

[Meds]

My edition is only 287 pages long ;)

I wonder how many people have read the original version from 1937? I haven't I have only read the 1987 print that i own. The reprint after the first edition has some minor changes in the Chapter Riddles in the Dark.

[X]

My edition is only 287 pages long ;)

I wonder how many people have read the original version from 1937? I haven't I have only read the 1987 print that i own. The reprint after the first edition has some minor changes in the Chapter Riddles in the Dark.

Meds, shame on you! :P You know as a writer, when someone says page count, they mean the page count in manuscript format. Publishing format always yields a different number due to font selection, size, and book dimensions.

[Bromptonboy]

My edition is only 287 pages long ;)

I wonder how many people have read the original version from 1937? I haven't I have only read the 1987 print that i own. The reprint after the first edition has some minor changes in the Chapter Riddles in the Dark.

I would love to read the original version - since it changes the dialogue with Gollum, and some of the references to the Ring - and the Necromancer were added later.

[Meds]

ER... yes Chris.... i did.... runs away lol ;)

[Rico]

Just keeps getting more and more impressive and amazing!

The Hobbit - September 2012 Trailer HD - An Unexpected Journey

[moyer777]

wow ,FANTASTIC!

[Bryancd]

Awesome!!! Yeah, I am SOOOO dissapointed they are making this into two movies....said me never. :) I wish they made even more! Make stuff up, I don't care!