http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/08 ... more-60354

Don't read this if you are afraid of spoilers. It's a good read though. It gives good justification to dividing the story into 3 instead of 2. I agree with pretty much every word in it.

_________________

Read that the other day. Completely agree.

_________________

They make good points, but I was on board before, so there wasn't much to convince me of. In my opinion, the team that made the LOTR trilogy earned some good will with their that run. I trust them to make a quality product.

_________________

Didnt read it yet, but does its justification of making three films include the need for each film to reach the three hour mark?
Is there any chance they don't make this a ten hour trilogy?

_________________
Do not bore me with such trite cliches. For I have you in my clutches, and should I choose, I could snuff out your insignificant lives in an instant.

Well the theatrical release won't be 3 hours.


Bring on the extended DVDs!!!

_________________

My local cinema ran all 3 extended editions of LOTR back to back as a launch event for the DVDs. That was a good day.

I've stated before my concern about a not very long book being made into 3 films, but I agree with Travis, I still think they're going to be great movies by virtue of the people working on them.

_________________

Even a not very long book has enough content for 10 hours of movie.

_________________

They say one page of script equals one minute of film. I'm aware that these are two different kinds of writing (novels and movie-scripts) since a page in a book can contain a lot more than one page of script, but when you take into account that scripts are written on DIN-A4 papers (size of paper, I'm not sure if you use the same system (probably not)) and these from books are usually a lot smaller, it could match roughly.

The Hobbit got 310 pages, so I would think one excess lenght movie would be enough.

_________________

I'm going to point this out again like I did in the other thread, Maidel brought it up too. You've got The Hobbit at around 300 pages, which makes up less than half of what will be in The Hobbit trilogy. Makes no sense, but there's a few chapters of summaries of what happened along the same timeline in the Appendices at the end of Return of the King, a few chapters in Unfinished Tales, and also a few chapters in The Silmarillion. Along with this as the article points out, assuming this is how the films will approach this, there could be flashbacks of Gandalf and Radagast with Thrain, the orc wars, Balin in Moria, and of course Bilbo and Frodo.

_________________

I don't have a lot invested in this, so don't imagine that I'm truly upset or anything, but Peter Jackson is incapable of making a 90 min movie at this point in his career. Especially with this subject matter. This could have easily been a light movie about a short book you can read in a day. Instead he's milking it for 3 films.
Again, it doesn't really affect me in any way, but it's no surprise either... he's become king of the bloated run time in my mind.

_________________
Do not bore me with such trite cliches. For I have you in my clutches, and should I choose, I could snuff out your insignificant lives in an instant.