Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
AUJ: 123 minutes long?
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 Next page Last page  View All

Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Sep 22 2012, 7:32pm

Post #1 of 81 (2597 views)
Shortcut
AUJ: 123 minutes long? Can't Post

From the TORN front page.

This is not official, but recently, lots of these unofficial rumors with specific info have turned out to be correct.

If so, what do you think? Would this seem to confirm that we will be getting three 2-hour long films, instead of two 3-hour long films?

IMO, if this is true, then I believe Warner Bros. was firmly behind the decision to turn the Hobbit into three films. More money, more screenings, more ticket sales, no necessary additional filming. A perfect business decision. Though an imperfect result for hardcore fans, who will have to wait another year to see some of their favorite characters...


Lusitano
Tol Eressea


Sep 22 2012, 7:35pm

Post #2 of 81 (1200 views)
Shortcut
duration [In reply to] Can't Post

Hope not! Would rather have 2 30 mins...didnt pj said that auj would at least be 230 hours?


SaltedPork
Bree


Sep 22 2012, 7:36pm

Post #3 of 81 (1207 views)
Shortcut
Don't think so... [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't think they are even done cutting the movie yet.


Elutherian
Rohan


Sep 22 2012, 7:37pm

Post #4 of 81 (1137 views)
Shortcut
What happened... [In reply to] Can't Post

...to the 2 hr 43 min. rumor?

The Grey Pilgrim, they once called me. Three hundred lives of men I walked this earth, and now I have no time...


DanielLB
Immortal


Sep 22 2012, 7:38pm

Post #5 of 81 (1189 views)
Shortcut
Far, far too short. [In reply to] Can't Post

Gutted if it is. Why end at the eagles when you could still have a 3 hour film?


Want Hobbit Movie News? Hobbit Headlines of the Week!



Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Sep 22 2012, 7:40pm

Post #6 of 81 (1075 views)
Shortcut
I hope not either [In reply to] Can't Post

I want a close to three-hour film myself.


burgahobbit
Rohan


Sep 22 2012, 7:45pm

Post #7 of 81 (1099 views)
Shortcut
I figured as much, but I think the next two films will be longer. (spoilers) [In reply to] Can't Post

If An Unexpected Journey was actually going to work as a film with the barrel scene, then this is what they cut out: Beorn, Mirkwood, Enchanted Stream, Dol Guldur, Spiders, (more Dol Guldur?), Wood Elves, Bilbo planning the escape, Bilbo executing the escape (i.e. the barrels). This would have to take up at the very least 1 hour and 30 minutes of screen time. Probably more like two hours. So we wither have a four our film (far to long with much cut out like ROTK) or we get a two hour film (too short). In between would end at the eaves of Mirkwood, which IMO would be somewhat anticlimactic.

But as for the next two films, more filming is taking place next year. I'm thinking something like this:

AUJ: 120 - 145 min.

DOS: 150 - 175 min.

TABA: 140 - 175 min.

But I believe this AUJ report may be true due to the trilogy and the eagle escape which were rumoured and then confirmed. I will take this with a small grain of salt to be sure, but now I am ready for whatever the actual running time will be. It won't be shorter than this!


(This post was edited by burgahobbit on Sep 22 2012, 7:51pm)


Escapist
Gondor


Sep 22 2012, 7:45pm

Post #8 of 81 (1016 views)
Shortcut
That's hard to believe [In reply to] Can't Post

if they included a frame (or some kind of intro), character development, and more than a short stay in Rivendell and Goblin Town - especially if they are including the level of character reactions and interplay as they showed in the trailer.


Danielos
Rohan

Sep 22 2012, 7:47pm

Post #9 of 81 (1001 views)
Shortcut
Terrible! [In reply to] Can't Post

Of course this was inevitable to happen when a duology suddenly became a trilogy. He had no choice but to reedit his 3-hour first movie to save material for the two other movies, and the additional material filmed next year will only benefit the 2nd and 3rd movie (which might be 3-hours each, though).

Obviously, it seems the first movie will suffer greatly by this decision. A 2-hour movie is not epic enough for a Middle Earth-story.


Elenorflower
Gondor


Sep 22 2012, 7:48pm

Post #10 of 81 (1039 views)
Shortcut
I may get [In reply to] Can't Post

a numb bum, but 3 hours is what I would like too. I would feel cheated with only 2 hours. Mad


macfalk
Valinor


Sep 22 2012, 7:48pm

Post #11 of 81 (986 views)
Shortcut
Didnt you guarantee that they would be almost 3 hours long? // [In reply to] Can't Post

 



The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.


Captain Salt
Tol Eressea


Sep 22 2012, 7:49pm

Post #12 of 81 (973 views)
Shortcut
Was hoping for at least 2.5 hours personally... [In reply to] Can't Post

I suppose DoS and TABA could always be longer, but would very disappointed if this turns out to be the case.

My Top 5 Wish List for "The Hobbit"
5. Legolas will surf down Smaug's neck
4. Bilbo will be revealed to a Robot
3. Naked PJ cameo as Ghan-Buri-Ghan
2. Use of not only 3D, but smell-o-vision, plus the inclusion of axes coming out of the seats and poking the audience when appropriate
1. Not only keep the claim that Thorin & Co. ran amok in Mirkwood "molesting people", but depict said incident in vivid detail!!!!!


burgahobbit
Rohan


Sep 22 2012, 7:53pm

Post #13 of 81 (913 views)
Shortcut
Yeah me too! // [In reply to] Can't Post

 


FiliSonOfDis
Rivendell


Sep 22 2012, 7:57pm

Post #14 of 81 (956 views)
Shortcut
I'd be extremely disappointed if this is true [In reply to] Can't Post

I think hardcore fans and even the general movie going public would be disappointed, after LOTR everyone expects long films here. Some people did complain that the LOTR movies were too long but even the usual blockbusters have gotten longer post LOTR. It seems like people are finally ok with longer movies and LOTR helped with that, so this time around people expect it even more. I wouldn't mind it being somewhat shorter, return of the king for instance was very long for most audiences, but everyone is expecting something at least close to if not more then three hours instead of two.

I don't mind it being split into three films and ending at the eagles but I expect AUJ to have tons of character development and interaction scenes making it about as long as any other Peter Jackson middle earth film. If it's this short it was entirely a marketing decision and I am not happy about it.


Magpie
Immortal


Sep 22 2012, 8:01pm

Post #15 of 81 (977 views)
Shortcut
"everyone is expecting something at least close to if not more then three hours instead of two" [In reply to] Can't Post

No, not everyone.

In my opinion, most movies over about 2 hr 15 just seem bloated, self indulgent, and in need of a good editor.

Additionally, many people can't physically sit three hours.

More is not always better.



LOTR soundtrack website ~ magpie avatar gallery
TORn History Mathom-house ~ Torn Image Posting Guide


macfalk
Valinor


Sep 22 2012, 8:03pm

Post #16 of 81 (906 views)
Shortcut
....which is why they should bring back intermissions! // [In reply to] Can't Post

 



The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.


Pipe Dream
Gondor


Sep 22 2012, 8:10pm

Post #17 of 81 (980 views)
Shortcut
"We're not very good at making short movies." [In reply to] Can't Post

Yeah...riiiight. I'm not happy about this runtime at all, I hope it's wrong, but once you chop two movies into three, it's bound to be a shorter affair per film. Right?

"There is a long road yet," said Gandalf. "But it is the last road," said Bilbo.


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Sep 22 2012, 8:14pm

Post #18 of 81 (938 views)
Shortcut
Nope [In reply to] Can't Post

I said at the very least 2hrs and 20 minutes, but likely on the 2 hours and 45 minute side.

Perhaps further editing down has occurred? In any event, I hope this report is simply not true. I can't imagine that the film is already done, and that theaters are already aware of the running time.

Two hours is far too short.


burgahobbit
Rohan


Sep 22 2012, 8:16pm

Post #19 of 81 (916 views)
Shortcut
The thing is... [In reply to] Can't Post

He said that when he knew there was a good chance of the Hobbit being split into three. He said it while laughing and actually made a point to interrupt a reporter when he said "a couple of hours" and correct him. Now if the third film was being considered, wouldn't the new ending have been considered? If so, why would Peter Jackson laugh off the two hour idea so assuredly at comic-con?


macfalk
Valinor


Sep 22 2012, 8:19pm

Post #20 of 81 (942 views)
Shortcut
Was your impeccable inside source mistaken this time? [In reply to] Can't Post

Tongue



The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Sep 22 2012, 8:34pm

Post #21 of 81 (888 views)
Shortcut
No [In reply to] Can't Post

That source never gave any definitive running time. They just suspected that 2:20 - 2:45 was the likely range.

This is also not confirmed yet.


Escapist
Gondor


Sep 22 2012, 8:38pm

Post #22 of 81 (875 views)
Shortcut
To get it that short [In reply to] Can't Post

I would think they would need to do something like either:
  • for every five extra "flavor" scenes that build character and infuse dialogue - expanding the narrator told story ... cut 4 and keep 1
  • drop an entire sequence of scenes like cutting a major report given in Rivendell, cutting a prologue, taking out a battle sequence completely
Granted - some of the flavor scenes should be selectively chosen. But I hope that they are keeping more like 3 out of 5 instead 1 out of 5 of those. Also granted, it is probably better to edit out something if it actually is found to not work - but hopefully no major sequence is getting dropped at this point of development with only a few months left before the show appears in theaters.

I did do a quick search on youtube (Steven Spielberg, movies / Peter Jackson, movies) and I found that the vast majority of the movies shown were under 2.5 hours long (including those done by Peter Jackson). The exceptions were Saving Private Ryan and the LOTR series.
So I don't think it would be outrageous for the movie to end up the same length as most other movies. However, I think it would take some overly severe editing that would affect the characterization and impact the ability to really show the adventurers going through landscapes and living the adventure (rather than just having a narrator voice telling what happened).

I'll be happy with the movies in either case - I just find it hard to believe that the movie is only 2 hours unless really extreme cutting is going on (like gutting out over half of what they've got (not including multiples of takes that might be saved) - which shouldn't be necessary).


Valandil ed Imladris
Lorien


Sep 22 2012, 8:44pm

Post #23 of 81 (847 views)
Shortcut
Good joke [In reply to] Can't Post

2 hours for a PJ-movie? NEVER!

At least something like Dark Knight Rises which was 164 minutes long!


burgahobbit
Rohan


Sep 22 2012, 8:44pm

Post #24 of 81 (814 views)
Shortcut
Well sometimes a 2 hour film seems rushed and in need of a good bit of additional filming [In reply to] Can't Post

Such as Narnia 3; it was way too short and the scenes just jumped along one to the other without slowing down barely at all. With all the content from the Shire to the Carrock, plus all the stuff they are adding, it seems the film should be longer and there is worry that it will be rushed and quickened.

Now, if a film is well paced and given some time to breathe, it does not matter how long it is. Narnia 3 is an example of the bad sort. Low budget slower films are an example of the good sort.


Danielos
Rohan

Sep 22 2012, 8:45pm

Post #25 of 81 (867 views)
Shortcut
Maybe WB dislikes 3 hour-movies? [In reply to] Can't Post

Maybe Warner Bros. are less happy about looong movies than New Line. Did any of the Harry Potter movies exceed 2:30 h for example?

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.