3 ms·
Do you think anything was rushed in the movie? I don't think there is 100 hours of story to tell or maybe you're talking about the whole series not just the fir
by jstx1 5y ago
Do you think anything was rushed in the movie? I don't think there is 100 hours of story to tell or maybe you're talking about the whole series not just the first book? (and even then it's a lot)
- wernercd 5y agoI think it'd be a good trilogy... or small series. Dozen hours... not 2. not 100.
- croes 5y agoJust remember they made 3 movies from The Hobbit
- jstx1 5y agoThat's kind of my point - when you stretch the source material too thin you end up with a crappy movie.
- globular-toast 5y agoYeah and there wasn't 9 hours worth of story to tell hence all the completely pointless fluff and endless CGI. Lord of the Rings (the theatrical versions) is still the gold standard for a difficult, large-scale fantasy adaptation as far as I'm concerned.
- Cthulhu_ 5y agoThe only way I ever want to watch that one again is a fan edit I heard about that cuts off the excess cruft. Lord of the Rings was a dedicated labor of love and is IMO still the (set of) films ever made. The Hobbit was a cynical attempt to try and cash in on LotR's success and mindshare, but it was doomed to fail from the start for not having the same team and amount of creative control behind it. In hindsight, I wish Peter Jackson was allowed to make The Hobbit first, then the LotR trilogy as we know it. The Hobbit could have been a film that never needed the huge budget it got in the end.
- mensetmanusman 5y agoEntire series.