Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Because the World Will Explode if a Lord of the Rings Film isn't Almost 3 Hours Long

The new Lord of the Rings film, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, is set to be the shortest in the franchise.  In this series that means the film is going to clock in at 2 hours and 40 minutes.

Really?  It had to be that long?

Peter Jackson is making a trilogy out of one book, The Hobbit.  I realize the latest fad has been taking books and dividing them into two parts -- okay fine, Twilight and Harry Potter did it and I can't think of anyone else, so it isn't much of a fad.  I know that some hardcore fans complained about the original trilogy missing out on key characters and plots.

But come on, they were all almost three hours.  They were good.  I admit that.  I loved them.  But whenever I see a film that long, I end up dancing in my seat for the entire climax, because I drank my medium soft drink too quickly.

The Hobbit is shorter than any of the books from the trilogy.  Each of those books were made into one film.  I realize this was before someone came up with the brilliant idea of splitting books into two parts.  They probably would have done it with the LOTR novels if they were adapted today.  But I'm just not sure how they're going to stretch this adaption into three looooong films.

Jackson's attempt to make all things epic may backfire on him.  This one could drag and include plot points that aren't necessarily done well in cinematic form.  I don't understand why epic always has to be super duper long.  There are many films that would be even better if they cut off a half hour or so.  Only a very few films really deserve to stretch way past two hours (and the original series did deserve it).

Of course, the trailer for the first film does look awesome.  So, what do I know.  I'll just pace myself with my Diet Coke, and hopefully, get swept away by the magic.

I want it to be awesome.  I really do.

No comments:

Post a Comment