3 ms·

You can read the book in half the running time of the movies. There's a lot of padding and pointless meandering in them. It should never have been a trilogy.

saalweachter 4y ago
You can listen to the audiobook in just under six hours, compared to the theatrical release of the trilogy which is nearly eight, or the extended release which is over eight and a half hours.
stormbrew 4y ago
While I think the hobbit movies were very bad, I've never agreed with this take. Mostly the movies pull details out of the lord of the rings appendixes and fill in gaps in the plot of the hobbit that would honestly be quite strange in a modern film. Gandalf just screwing off for no apparent reason for half the film would be confusing and weird (honestly it was in the book too, but it's too whimsical to be a bother). And a lot of people complained about Legolas being there but other people would complain if he wasn't, or if he was just a no name member of the mob like the elves were in the book. There's nothing inherently wrong with an adapted version of the hobbit that fits in better to lord of the rings imo, it's just that this particular try at it was a disaster.
wolverine876 4y ago
Wow, that really makes those movies pointless! And how much more does it cost to watch the movies compared with buying the book? You can have an all-time great book or spend more time and money on decent (ok, awful IMHO) movie.
falcrist 4y ago
If you look at the word count and movie runtime of LOTR, then compare it to the word count of The Hobbit, you'll find that a similar treatment of The Hobbit would result in probably around 90 minutes of film. There are complications with that assessment, but 90 minutes would fit quite well with the fact that it's supposed to be a children's story. The Rankin Bass animated version left out a few key plot points (particularly the arkenstone subplot) that could be recovered with a 90 minute runtime. I could also see the possibility of having a 2 hour extended edition

saalweachter 4y ago

You can listen to the audiobook in just under six hours, compared to the theatrical release of the trilogy which is nearly eight, or the extended release which is over eight and a half hours.

stormbrew 4y ago

While I think the hobbit movies were very bad, I've never agreed with this take. Mostly the movies pull details out of the lord of the rings appendixes and fill in gaps in the plot of the hobbit that would honestly be quite strange in a modern film. Gandalf just screwing off for no apparent reason for half the film would be confusing and weird (honestly it was in the book too, but it's too whimsical to be a bother). And a lot of people complained about Legolas being there but other people would complain if he wasn't, or if he was just a no name member of the mob like the elves were in the book. There's nothing inherently wrong with an adapted version of the hobbit that fits in better to lord of the rings imo, it's just that this particular try at it was a disaster.

wolverine876 4y ago

Wow, that really makes those movies pointless! And how much more does it cost to watch the movies compared with buying the book? You can have an all-time great book or spend more time and money on decent (ok, awful IMHO) movie.

falcrist 4y ago

If you look at the word count and movie runtime of LOTR, then compare it to the word count of The Hobbit, you'll find that a similar treatment of The Hobbit would result in probably around 90 minutes of film. There are complications with that assessment, but 90 minutes would fit quite well with the fact that it's supposed to be a children's story. The Rankin Bass animated version left out a few key plot points (particularly the arkenstone subplot) that could be recovered with a 90 minute runtime. I could also see the possibility of having a 2 hour extended edition