Login | Register
Message Board | Latest Posts | Your Recent Posts | Rules

Thread: Why two movies?

Is this discussion interesting? Share it on Twitter!

Bottom of Page    Message Board > The Hobbit (Movie) > Why two movies?   
Why do they have to have 2 movies? Dances with Wolves was 4 and a half hours (almost 6 hours in the extended version) long and it's still in the Top 100 movies. Braveheart was long and there was a ton of fighting in that.

If they make the movie good enough, people won't walk out of the theater before it's over. Hollywood is stuck on the 2 hour movie.




People read the story to their kids. Just about everyone I know grew up with it. If they do it right, they don't have to worry about how long it is and then they only need one movie.

Two movies just doesn't make sense to me.

Just my $0.02
I think its important to remember that The Hobbit is a story for the young. Asking folk to sit in a cinema for 5 or 6 hours would alienate the movie from the audience it was intended for.
The Hobbit is not all for the young, you know. There are some things that only the more mature audiences can see, such as recurring themes, hints to the following book(s), topics in Lore, etc. Sure, it does make a good story for everyone, but it makes a great, even epic, story if you can digest every single thing out of it, and [i:3cp0wsd4]most children[/i:3cp0wsd4] cannot do that.

Opinions, opinions. . .
The original story was written with no thought of including it in the epic world that Tolkien was creating. In fact, Tolkien slightly edited the Hobbit afterwards so that it would mesh better with LOTR. And he wrote LOTR trying to mesh stuff from the Hobbit into the story.

So, in its original form (and in the original spirit of the story), it was a story that you told your kids at the end of the day by the fire.
Even as the die hard fan that I am, I have a confession to make. My first run through of RotK in theater, I missed parts. Midnight showing an all that, I just sort of "..zz..z. oh crap!"
And with most theater seating I've seen, anything past 2 hours hurts, 3 is pushing tolerance, and 4 is a torture session that should be considered criminal.
I get your point, Show, but it kind of depends on how interesting the movie or theater is. For example, I watched all LOTR movies in a row without getting tired or bored. But I guess, when it comes to The Hobbit, only REAL fans would have done that without complaining. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' />

But Im still not sure, will there be one movie thats The Hobbit, and one movie that contains the story between The Hobbit and LOTR, or will The Hobbit be seperated into these two movies? Ive gotten a little confused by some newsletters :roll:
Ady's blog revealed that Del Toro and Jackson are only doing the Hobbit in two movies, and the idea of a bridging movie has been shelved for later after the Chris Tolkien suit is (hopefully) resolved.

Discussion of how this should be handled is taking place on the Directors vision thread, the thoughts on the break point thread, and the other two movies thread 8-) .

I say these books are like Shakesprearean, literary genius so you need to do the books justice, they need to be taken seriously for rabid fans like ourselves, I love the LotR trilogy but I was disappointed when they left out my favorite part of the book which is the scouring of the shire and a few others but I understand you cant put in everything
I think 2 movies is not a bad thing. If it means they can get more of the story from the book on screen without sacrificing anything then I`m all for it. Hopefully the guys filming will have plenty of scope to maybe enlarge some parts of the book to make it even more of a screen spectacular.
I consider at them there should be 2 films! Dances with Wolves made 4 and a half an hour (almost 6 hours per the expanded version) long, and it is still in the Best 100 films. They are good enough!