If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Village Voice)   IMPORTANT STUDY: The average adult can read further into The Hobbit within the movie's own running time than the movie itself actually covers   (blogs.villagevoice.com) divider line 25
    More: Asinine, The Hobbit, running time, Wilhelm scream, First Hour, Frodo, The Return of the King  
•       •       •

3567 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 07 Dec 2012 at 12:41 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-07 01:14:08 PM
5 votes:
And the movie Titanic was longer than it actually took the boat to sink, your point?
2012-12-07 09:10:03 PM
2 votes:
What did Gimli say?

"I asked her for one hair from her golden head. She gave me three."

Apparently there are a handful of people who think this is a problem. Those people are freaks.
2012-12-07 03:55:41 PM
2 votes:
Also, Bombur was a walking fat joke in the book as well.
2012-12-07 01:46:03 PM
2 votes:

lmdemasi: the time to beat, by The Hollywood Reporter's reckoning: 158 minutes

By the time I reached the end of chapter six, where the film stops, just over two and a half hours had passed -- I still had 20+ minutes to spare.

You don't say?


Dahfuq..


60 +60+30 = 150

150+20 = 170

158-170 = -12.
2012-12-07 01:32:51 PM
2 votes:

NeoCortex42: Tolkien pretty much treated The Hobbit the same way King worked on The Gunslinger.


Only the opposite because the revised version of The Gunslinger was farking terrible.

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Someone on Fark once put it this way: Tolkien was a master as describing setting, but couldn't handle action or interactions for sh*t.

Three pages of describing trees and armies and setting up suspense, followed by:
"There was then a fight and a bunch of people died."


The Battle of the Five Armies was like what, two pages? And most of that was just AND THEN THERE WERE THESE OTHER DWARVES LED BY GRUMPY SON OF GOOSEY FROM THE GREY HALLS OF AEIIOUIAIOUI VAN DEN VOWEL APPROACHING UPON THE DAYBREAK AND THEN THERE WERE...
2012-12-07 01:31:40 PM
2 votes:

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Why did they decide to basically treat the theatrical release in the same way they treated the extended editions of the LOTR films? There's a reason you leave that extra 45 minutes or so to the version for the uber-fans...the average film-goer doesn't appreciate it and gets bored. Had they made those versions of the LOTR flicks the main releases, it would have gotten much harsher reviews from mainstream critics and audiences. And that is what appears to be happening here with The Hobbit.

I LOVE the added attention to detail and the thought that Jackson included additional lore from Tolkien material that isn't in the original book, but I'd be happy to leave that to an extended edition. There are gonna be a lot of malcontent non-geek spouses who will wonder why the f*ck the film is so damn long.


I blame Warner Brothers for the over-inflation of this one. Jackson originally wanted to make it in 2
parts, and it was fairly well into the production process where they announced "Hey, we're doing it in
3 films not 2!"

THE HOBBIT could have been very easily and fully adapted in 2 slightly-longer than average movies,
with a natural break where Bilbo gets lost under the mountain. I don't even know what Jackson could
do to pad it out; even if he added in Tom Bombadil, that will mean an excessive amount of tinkering
and addition, and while I think the result will be great (I happen to think Jackson did a great job of
capturing the feel of Tolkien with the LOTR movies, even if he made some changes and deletions that
got some purist's panties in a bunch), the only think Warner cares about is money.
2012-12-07 01:15:46 PM
2 votes:

NewWorldDan: Yes, but how far can the average adult read before putting the book down because Tolkein, though a creative genius, was an awful writer.


Someone on Fark once put it this way: Tolkien was a master as describing setting, but couldn't handle action or interactions for sh*t.

Three pages of describing trees and armies and setting up suspense, followed by:
"There was then a fight and a bunch of people died."
2012-12-07 12:50:38 PM
2 votes:
I'm pretty much "shut up and take my money" about the whole affair.
2012-12-07 04:31:16 PM
1 votes:

ClintonKun: So, I'm hoping it's a good mix of silly and serious.


That's for what I'm hoping. It just wouldn't be The Hobbit without some good old fashioned dwarf slapstick. The Hobbit invented dwarf slapstick for god's sake.
2012-12-07 03:27:35 PM
1 votes:

EdNortonsTwin: ClintonKun: stoli n coke: Saiga410: I did not know that PJ cut the Hobbit into 3 movies from a 300 page book. I read slow but I know I could do roughly 100 pages in 2.5 hours.

The Hobbit is only 300 pages? Then why the fark do they need 3 movies that run nearly 3 hours apiece to tell the story? I understand why Lord of the Rings needed it, because that book was freakin enormous.

They're going to show a "side story" that happened at the same time of the Hobbit, which is expanded upon in other books. Basically, it's about what Gandalf is running off to do, whenever he runs off from the Bilbo and the Dwarves. And from what I've read, it leads to a huge moment of awesome.

Gandalf in Dol Guldur is going to be epic.


There's plenty of content for three movies. Plenty.


yeah, PJ dug deep into The Silmarillion to get the additional material. So it's not like he's just making sh*t up. All the extra stuff is either expanding the writing from The Hobbit ("...and they fought" becomes a 20 minute fight scene), or taken from the additional Middle Earth stories.
2012-12-07 03:05:07 PM
1 votes:

Don Piano: I always preferred spaceships and laser beams to fairy-land and trolls.


a1.ec-images.myspacecdn.com

Spaceboy!
2012-12-07 02:24:55 PM
1 votes:

stoli n coke: Saiga410: I did not know that PJ cut the Hobbit into 3 movies from a 300 page book. I read slow but I know I could do roughly 100 pages in 2.5 hours.

The Hobbit is only 300 pages? Then why the fark do they need 3 movies that run nearly 3 hours apiece to tell the story? I understand why Lord of the Rings needed it, because that book was freakin enormous.


They're going to show a "side story" that happened at the same time of the Hobbit, which is expanded upon in other books. Basically, it's about what Gandalf is running off to do, whenever he runs off from the Bilbo and the Dwarves. And from what I've read, it leads to a huge moment of awesome.
2012-12-07 02:04:39 PM
1 votes:

devilEther: oldfarthenry: PJ made King Kong long & boring! Someone give this asshole a clock - or a least a good film editor!

As one critic put it regarding King Kong, "It was bloat killed the beast". I fear the same may hold true for The Hobbit.

/keep your expectations low


My expectations are incredibly low. Every trailer makes it look worse. Yes I'm still going to see it so don't get your nerd undies in a bunch. It was the only Tolkien book I liked.
2012-12-07 01:57:07 PM
1 votes:

DjangoStonereaver: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Why did they decide to basically treat the theatrical release in the same way they treated the extended editions of the LOTR films? There's a reason you leave that extra 45 minutes or so to the version for the uber-fans...the average film-goer doesn't appreciate it and gets bored. Had they made those versions of the LOTR flicks the main releases, it would have gotten much harsher reviews from mainstream critics and audiences. And that is what appears to be happening here with The Hobbit.

I LOVE the added attention to detail and the thought that Jackson included additional lore from Tolkien material that isn't in the original book, but I'd be happy to leave that to an extended edition. There are gonna be a lot of malcontent non-geek spouses who will wonder why the f*ck the film is so damn long.

I blame Warner Brothers for the over-inflation of this one. Jackson originally wanted to make it in 2
parts, and it was fairly well into the production process where they announced "Hey, we're doing it in
3 films not 2!"

THE HOBBIT could have been very easily and fully adapted in 2 slightly-longer than average movies,
with a natural break where Bilbo gets lost under the mountain. I don't even know what Jackson could
do to pad it out; even if he added in Tom Bombadil, that will mean an excessive amount of tinkering
and addition, and while I think the result will be great (I happen to think Jackson did a great job of
capturing the feel of Tolkien with the LOTR movies, even if he made some changes and deletions that
got some purist's panties in a bunch), the only think Warner cares about is money.


rankin-bass managed a very well-executed and faithful adaptation in ninety minutes. jackson could have done just as well in a single movie. it's a very simple story. three hours is more than enough time to tell it, unless you have 20-minute dish-throwing sequences and such.
2012-12-07 01:47:43 PM
1 votes:

DjangoStonereaver: I happen to think Jackson did a great job of
capturing the feel of Tolkien with the LOTR movies, even if he made some changes and deletions that
got some purist's panties in a bunch


Please excuse me now, I must un-bunch my panties yet again. 

Frodo, of the nine fingers....and the Ring of Doom.....
2012-12-07 01:45:13 PM
1 votes:

kroonermanblack: I did however, enjoy the hobbit. Probably precisely because it was a more tightly written narrative with less 'here's a 400 page useless history' and 'here's 10 pages of song'. It was just a narrative. A well told story. I read it in HS or JH, and then tried to read lotro. Never made it past the first half of the first book.


To be fair, the first half of the first book is the worst part of LotR. The story doesn't really get engaging until the second half of Fellowship and it gets great once you get into Two Towers.
2012-12-07 01:39:32 PM
1 votes:
NeoCortex42


Tolkien pretty much treated The Hobbit the same way King worked on The Gunslinger.
ummm No.

JRRT made bits of the hobbit more serious to fit with the tone of the entire epic.

$K on the other hand, treated "The Gunslinger" (both the re-write and the last 3 books) like George lucas treated the Original Trilogy "special editions".
2012-12-07 01:26:21 PM
1 votes:

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Why did they decide to basically treat the theatrical release in the same way they treated the extended editions of the LOTR films?


I recently discovered if you skip numerous scenes in PJ's King Kong, e.g. some of the NY scenes at the beginning, some of the scenes on the ship, the silly Brontosaurus stampede, etc. it is a much more enjoyable film.
2012-12-07 01:16:54 PM
1 votes:
I did not know that PJ cut the Hobbit into 3 movies from a 300 page book. I read slow but I know I could do roughly 100 pages in 2.5 hours.
2012-12-07 01:08:24 PM
1 votes:
On a related note, Stephen Colbert has Peter Jackson on last night, and Colbert was schooling him on Tolkien knowledge. Anyway, supposedly Tolkien at one point was re-writing "The Hobbit" story to be more in line with the somewhat more adult tone of LOTR. After LOTR, he came to consider "The Hobbit" to be a children's book interpretation of a rather dark and complex story...a somewhat sanitized and condensed version of "the real story". So Tolkien set about re-doing it. Someone apparently convinced him that he'd just undermine his original masterpiece, and he stopped working on it.

That's Colbert's story, anyway. Very interesting if true.

I'm interested to see if Jackson maintains the lighter nature of The Hobbit, or tries to make it more consistent with the LOTR. The books definitely had different tones.
2012-12-07 01:01:16 PM
1 votes:
Why did they decide to basically treat the theatrical release in the same way they treated the extended editions of the LOTR films? There's a reason you leave that extra 45 minutes or so to the version for the uber-fans...the average film-goer doesn't appreciate it and gets bored. Had they made those versions of the LOTR flicks the main releases, it would have gotten much harsher reviews from mainstream critics and audiences. And that is what appears to be happening here with The Hobbit.

I LOVE the added attention to detail and the thought that Jackson included additional lore from Tolkien material that isn't in the original book, but I'd be happy to leave that to an extended edition. There are gonna be a lot of malcontent non-geek spouses who will wonder why the f*ck the film is so damn long.
2012-12-07 12:59:46 PM
1 votes:
That's due to PJ's odd decision to include each character's bathroom break in the film.
2012-12-07 12:57:52 PM
1 votes:
So, don't go see it. Problem solved.
2012-12-07 12:56:16 PM
1 votes:
But I don't like reading. My imagination was killed after years of Nintendo. I need constant visual stimulation.
2012-12-07 12:56:03 PM
1 votes:

NewWorldDan: Yes, but how far can the average adult read before putting the book down because Tolkein, though a creative genius, was an awful writer.


He was no E. L. James but he was pretty good.
 
Displayed 25 of 25 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report