Chen G.
Gondor
Aug 6 2018, 9:53pm
Views: 4723
|
I cant see it being good to remove a single second from Peter Jacksons magnifficent movies! I dont see why so many people say these movies are so full of things that need to be removed. I like the extended cuts as they are: I would probably cut the equivalent of ten minutes out of the whole trilogy, and I'd probably add other stuff in its place (more character moments for the individual Dwarves!) But than, they extended cuts are a kind of movie that one watches in a different frame of mind: more like that of watching an old, 60s epic; and they're meant for the small-screne (where the film isn't as overbearing and can therefore be experienced longer without being exhausting) anyway. I do think the theatrical cut of An Unexpected Journey should have been much shorter. I think it would have payed to have the "first" entry in this series be a concise, action-packed adventure film, which would be more effective at drawing new audiences in compared to the somewhat lumbering epic that we got. I do think a one-movie prospect, especially a two-hour one, is preposterous. The Hobbit is a packed, minimalistically-written novel, which is to say nothing of the supplemental material in The Lord of the Rings and the Appendices. There's a reason people were willing to accept a two-film adaptation back in the day. Also, I think that by reorienting the story to circulate Thorin rather than Bilbo, that inherently makes the story much more "epic" and lends itself to longer features and to a trilogy of them, at that. I think Jackson's King Kong (another underrated movie) is more poorly paced than any of these three films.
|