The Hobbit in three movies, what a gyp! ;-)

[Herschel]

I read that with the Hobbit now split in three, we fans that have been patiently waiting are getting gyped right up front. Yep, the estimated running time of "An Unexpected Journey" is now out and Peter Jackson admits it's the shortest of the three!!!!!! Talk about a kick in the pants, scraping together enough footage for an extra film and betraying us our rightful hobbity goodness right up front, don't they care about the fans?!?!?! I mean, come on, how can we be entertained when the movie clocks in at a mere 2:44. That's shorter than a new Tom Hanks movie.

I may not be able to handle the extended edition marathon prior to the showing of the third installment this time around.

 

[Zaukrie]

Where is the /s?

 

[Dioltach]

Yeah, how dare Peter Jackson give us three great movies instead of two?

 

[Agamon]

I'm outraged, I tell you. Outraged. Really. Outraged.

 

[Blackwarder]

I'm furious! Absolutely furious!

Grrrrrrrr


Warder

 

[JRRNeiklot]

They lost me when they turned the dwarves into elves with beards.

 

[Blackwarder]

They lost me when they turned the dwarves into elves with beards.

You mean like a sex change or somthing???

Warder

 

[delericho]

Yeah, how dare Peter Jackson give us three great movies instead of two?

You assume, of course, that they will be great movies, rather than spreading too little material out amongst too long a running time. "The Hobbit" is both thinner than any one of the three parts of "Lord of the Rings" and, being written for younger readers, is a simpler story to boot.

And as "King Kong" abundantly demonstrates, neither Peter Jackson's involvement nor a long running time is any guarantee of quality.

I really hope these films are awesome. Truly, I do. But I'm fighting hard not to let my expectations run amok - "The Phantom Menace" stands as stark warning of why that's a bad idea.

 

[TarionzCousin]

I'm so upset that I refuse--absolutely and unequivocally--to watch this movie until it is showing in a theater near me.

 

[Dioltach]

You assume, of course, that they will be great movies, rather than spreading too little material out amongst too long a running time. "The Hobbit" is both thinner than any one of the three parts of "Lord of the Rings" and, being written for younger readers, is a simpler story to boot.

I have an idea that, precisely because it was written for younger readers, The Hobbit actually contains a higher degree of action than the separate parts of The Lord of the Rings: if you eliminate the songs and poems and long descriptive passages I'm pretty sure each volume would be much shorter. I have no proof of this, mind: it's just a feeling.

Either way, for now I'm willing to give PJ the benefit of the doubt.