I still can't stop but think how stretched out the Hobbit films were, for an otherwise short book. That's a sin that stains forever with me. The Lord of the Rings films, do have their own flaws, but they're fairly contained and can be debated as to whether they were good or not. I have so much trouble excusing anything with the Hobbit though.

And I hope we never, ever see anyone tackle The Silmarillion. Simply because, there will be so much improvised fluff in that would-be film, that it'd make the Hobbit films blush.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

I loved watching the hobbit in the cinema, but i was a kid and I don't think I will ever sit down to watch it all again.

The first one felt okay to have as one long film, i.e natural, but it's weird that it would end with the eagle rescue after Goblin town.

If i think about it off the top of my head, some scenes they stretched out in film 1 ("An Unexpected Journey") were:

  • The "prelude" scenes of E r e b o r, which were very beautiful and cinematic, but most movies would convey in one or two scenes.
  • confrontations such as with the trolls and the goblins
  • CGI sequences like Radagast leading the wargs away from the dwarves

I've not thought about it before but it really is a shame because as soon as a shorter version comes along, people will prioritise that film instead.

  • source