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:
When are we likely to know the running length?
First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Oct 5 2012, 1:17am

Post #26 of 54 (531 views)
Shortcut
Where did you hear this? {NT} [In reply to] Can't Post

 


Sinister71
Tol Eressea


Oct 5 2012, 1:20am

Post #27 of 54 (541 views)
Shortcut
I wont say they are bad because of running time [In reply to] Can't Post

but it will influence my final decision on whether it was done as a cash grab to make more money or done to simply tell more story. Angelic


(This post was edited by sinister71 on Oct 5 2012, 1:21am)


Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor

Oct 5 2012, 1:26am

Post #28 of 54 (565 views)
Shortcut
People have not decided the films are bad because of the possible shorter running time [In reply to] Can't Post

But rather, that the three-film decision may have been less about creating a fuller, more robust and less rushed story, and more about overall ticket sales.

I, for one, have applauded PJ's three-film decision because I think it will allow him to take his time with places, and characters.


stoutfiles
Rohan

Oct 5 2012, 3:30am

Post #29 of 54 (540 views)
Shortcut
It's the 123 minute runtime rumor [In reply to] Can't Post

While I'm skeptical of that rumor, I wouldn't be suprised. Unless PJ is pulling out all the EE material to make AUJ longer, a 3+ hour film is going to be much shorter when you've already filmed it and then cut out Beorn, Mirkwood, and the elves.


Tim
Tol Eressea


Oct 5 2012, 3:40am

Post #30 of 54 (500 views)
Shortcut
I didn't say they have decided that... [In reply to] Can't Post

I clearly said I'm interested if anyone will, when the running times are released.

I have run into people like that before, I think once when I was discussing with folks Fellowship a long time ago.

King Arthur: Who are you who can summon fire without flint or tinder?

Tim: There are some who call me... Tim?

King Arthur: You know much that is hidden oh Tim.

Tim: Quite.


Magpie
Immortal


Oct 5 2012, 4:25am

Post #31 of 54 (605 views)
Shortcut
FOTR [In reply to] Can't Post

I did a page search for FOTR to see if this has been answered and didn't get any hits. I haven't read all the responses as I'm just acting as researcher. Apologies if it's been answered. Especially if it's been answered more definitively than I have here.

Some dates for news articles at TORn for FOTR:
I know you are not interested in speculation for those dates but the fact that there is speculation indicates that the firm answer was not known. The first three are speculation. The last one seems firm (although I haven't been so thorough that I can say that time was not modified later). It's hard to do a search site for the info since the articles aren't consistent in how they refer to the length of the movie. This search was for: FOTR running hours

But if a post said 'the length of the movie' then it wouldn't come up with that search. The only way to be thorough is to do a week by week search of old archives. It can be entertaining. http://archives.theonering.net/archives/main_news


New Line Suits see FOTR Rough Cut?
August 1st, 2001
Dunno if this is news or not, but I have it on good authority that New Line execs have seen a 3.5 hour director’s cut of Fellowship. Word is that it’s being pared down to 3 hours. I was only expecting 2.5, so that’s good news as far as I’m concerned.
http://www.theonering.net/...ee-fotr-rough-cut-2/

More on the LOTR premiere in LA
August 12th, 2001
Did you know that Peter Jackson sent the latest cut of the film to New Line earlier this week? [Last week that would be, now] 2 hours 45 minutes, I believe.”
http://www.theonering.net/...lotr-premiere-in-la/

“Behind the Scenes of Middle Earth” at Lincoln Center in New York City.
September 10th, 2001
Q&A session: Q: What will be the running time of FotR? BO: About 2 hours and 45 minutes.
http://www.theonering.net/...ln-center-reports-2/

The first Lord Of The Rings film has been given a PG certificate in the UK by the BBFC. The running time for the first part of Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy has also been confirmed as two hours 58 minutes.
November 19th, 2001
http://www.theonering.net/...fotr-pg-certificate/


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

(This post was edited by Magpie on Oct 5 2012, 4:25am)


DanielLB
Immortal


Oct 5 2012, 7:00am

Post #32 of 54 (487 views)
Shortcut
I'll moan non-stop if it is less than 2.5 hours [In reply to] Can't Post

I'll still love the film though. Wink

Want Hobbit Movie News? Hobbit Headlines of the Week!



Sunflower
Valinor

Oct 5 2012, 7:47am

Post #33 of 54 (465 views)
Shortcut
Not necessarily bad.... [In reply to] Can't Post

...just "artistically compromised."Tongue

I want whatever is artistically best for the film. I still think that Peter Jackson wanted 2 3-hr or almost 3-hr long films ("We're really bad at doing short films") b/c way back when Del Toro was on the project, even as far back as 3 yrs ago, at a press conference they both said "There's only one logical place to break the films." and many of us speculated it was at Barrells out of Bond, which according to the EW Scroll, later turned out to be correct. I really think Peter had this endng locked down yrs ago, (and Shore was working the basic structure of his score around this basic breaking point.) As far as the EE went, he must have thought he could keep these running times/lengths and get his extra sooting time for any EE if he wanted to, (with the additional material for each EE being much less than each LOTR one, maybe half an hr for each film.) Maybe the total running time of each film would be roughly the same in the end; but what matters here is the structure of the overall narrative. He must have been assuming that he;d end up getting his way in the end, even with the additional Appendices material filmed (and I still don't think the decision to go to the Appendices to show, say, Dain or the Goblin Wars was sudden either--I think he came to that decision early on.) But, unlike his dealings with New Line, he could not budge WB.
I always think directors are conservative and they want to do things the way they always do. I don't think Peter wanted any of his films, esp the last one, to have a "summer blockbuster" instead of potential "Oscar rating" film either (Summer instead of Christmas.)

I really do think in the end Peter would have wanted 2 3-hr films plus a shorter EE, if that served the films' best interest artistically. I personally don't think he is greedy or in it for the money. After all, he didn't want to do the project in the first place b/c of the huge expectations; he wanted whatever was artistically best for the films, if anything b/c of the immense pressure to match the artstic brilliance and quality of LOTR. (I know, I know, Mr Shelob..your opinion of LOTR....but looking at it from his POV.) For example, if LOTR was being made today and by WB in the same fashion, I don't think WB would have done what NL did and lessened costs by working with foreign distributors (a decision WB could have easily made and saved lots of money, if they had looked at NL's precident). If LOTR wre made today,I can easily see them insisting that Peter follow the general triend started by their HP7 production and splitting ROTK in half, which given the legnth of the ROTK EE certainly would have been possible (they could easily have split the theatrical running time to end with Grond like in the EE.)

Wth the useage of extra material from the Appendices, you can say that a 3-film structure might be better, BUT that is only if the material used is RELEVANTto the events in TH and Bilbo's growth as a character (and Thorin's parallel downward character arc, if these are the 2 central characters of TH and the spine of the story. For all its meanderings, nowhere in LOTR did things get really off the beaten track--the focus always came back to the Ring. Peter took out the right material from the books.)
If all this extra stuff is just politics for politics sake, then it'll be irrelevnt. The focus has to revolve around Bilbo and Thorin *at all times*...whatever happens, the audience must be held to that every moment.)

The thing to rememberhere is that WB historically does not like long films. They never have, and since HP, they've only gotte worse. The decision to split HP 7 into 2 was taken by the film-makers, and as someone who read all the HP books and is familar with the overall narrative as well as Deathly hallows the novel in detail, it was the only logical decision, a decisionmost of the fans agrred with. AS long as the series was, it was amazing how many major loose threads still remained at that point and given her huge, sprawling cast, *every single detail* of Book 8 was important to resolving all the conflicts bult up over the course of 7 books, and you couldn't pull out even minor characters like Luna Lovegood's father, b/c even that character was a party to central plot revelations. Even the camping scenes served a purpose (sorry.) Ironically, HP fans had been calling for Books 4 nd 5 to be split in half for yrs, given how poorly film 5 in paticular turned out. Which in retospect would have been the right decision for those films. (IF done right and not just as a slavishly faithful to the book narrative.)
HOWEVER...unlike most other projects in Hollywood which are dragged out this long, for HP it was necessary, b/c we were following a brilliantly written and constructed plot, with doezens of characters, each of whom had a role to play...where each film had to be a stand-alone film on its own, in addition to adding up to a grand overall narrative. (Tere are fans--and I can easily see you among them, MR Shelob, if you have read Rowling's books) who argue that a couple of the books themselves run on too long, and maybe for Book 5 this is true...but the central narrative is still complex enough even when you boil things down, you can't, say, have dreamed of having 6 books and not 7. And no, I don;t have time to argue this point...Laugh)

I think that WB hates long movies and has insisted on this way b/c they want to have the most streams of evenue possible...it's THEY who want to "milk" this sponge out as long as possible. Shorter theatrical running time to get the most showings, summer 2014 instead of Chistmas b.c they didnt have a 2014 summer blockbuster lined up and it;s the first time in 11 yrs they didn't have one (they're the only studio in Hollywood which as consistently made over a billion dollars per yr since 2001 and they want to keep this record going), PLUS an EE for each film. And the argument they;ve presented, that fans having to wait too long between films 2 and 3, doesn't wash-that's not a problem with Peter, who knows the "wait" between LOTR films was mitigated with the release of the EE's. Again: I don't think Peter is moivated by greed to the point where he would compromise his own film. He darned well knows that any media reaction painting him as "Peter Lucas" is a very real danger, and all these years he has dreaded not living up to expectations.


(This post was edited by Sunflower on Oct 5 2012, 7:55am)


Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Oct 5 2012, 1:38pm

Post #34 of 54 (412 views)
Shortcut
That's exactly what I was looking for! [In reply to] Can't Post

You're the best! Heart

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

The Hall of Fire


burgahobbit
Rohan


Oct 5 2012, 2:56pm

Post #35 of 54 (391 views)
Shortcut
Thanks! So possibly mid November [In reply to] Can't Post

Maybe my birthday? Smile


macfalk
Valinor


Oct 5 2012, 4:24pm

Post #36 of 54 (348 views)
Shortcut
Thanks, magpie [In reply to] Can't Post

Interesting that it wasn't until 3 weeks before the movie's premiere that the correct running time was announced. Even the one in September, 2001, was inaccurate.

However, as some has said already, 10 years have passed and the true (or untrue) length of this film will spread on the net much faster.



The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.

(This post was edited by macfalk on Oct 5 2012, 4:24pm)


Magpie
Immortal


Oct 5 2012, 5:22pm

Post #37 of 54 (379 views)
Shortcut
I'm not sure if any earlier reports were incorrect, so much... [In reply to] Can't Post

I mean, I haven't seen them all. But reports on TORn included a lot of estimates and speculation. But I think it was a moving target until the very last minute.

In an interview with David Garland, Spinning on Air, Howard Shore said:

Quote
HS: Peter says the movie is finished only when they take it away. The movie’s never finished.

DG: Hmm.

HS: There’s just a point when they take it away, meaning that there has to be an end. You know, the studio says, “It must stop now. You know, you must stop working on this.” And that’s the way we all feel. There is that sort of delivery date, that goal, that moment when they say, “It must stop.” But you work so full on, and so completely dedicated to it to create it... because you also know you’re not going there... you know, you are creating this moment, say, of the Destruction of the Ring or describing the world of Lothlórien that people have read about for 50 years. And you want to make sure that your imagery of those worlds is as true and as real and as well crafted as you could possibly do it.
http://www.amagpiesnest.com/.../radio_interview.htm


Also, in the TTT DVD extra, Music for Middle-earth, this was said:

Quote
Peter Jackson: The key point with the post production on any movie is the delivery date. And the delivery date is like the religious moment that cannot be altered and which the filmmakers have to hand the finished film to the studio. And from the end of October, they have enough time—just—to make the ten thousand copies of the film to get the film into cinemas all around the world.

Barrie Osborne: Even while we were scoring the movie and Howard had written his music, Peter was still cutting and recutting the film.
http://www.amagpiesnest.com/...s/ttt_appendices.htm


So, the running time might be 2 hrs and 45 minutes on Monday, but the film might be 2 hrs and 53 minutes on Tuesday. And 3 hours and 2 minutes on Wednesday, etc.

Howard's intonation on that line, "It must stop now," is quite interesting. (you can listen to a soundclip at my site which I linked to above) As a perfectionist/completionist, I totally understand that almost uncontrollable desire to try one more thing, to fix one more thing, to tweak one more thing. Tolkien did just that for years!


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


Tim
Tol Eressea


Oct 5 2012, 8:40pm

Post #38 of 54 (297 views)
Shortcut
Good point. // [In reply to] Can't Post

 

King Arthur: Who are you who can summon fire without flint or tinder?

Tim: There are some who call me... Tim?

King Arthur: You know much that is hidden oh Tim.

Tim: Quite.


stoutfiles
Rohan

Oct 6 2012, 2:56am

Post #39 of 54 (299 views)
Shortcut
Yes, but also [In reply to] Can't Post

The running time might be 2 hrs and 45 minutes on Monday, but the film might be 2 hrs and 31 minutes on Tuesday. And 2 hours and 3 minutes on Wednesday, etc.

More time doesn't mean PJ is adding content, but merely getting to a lower minute count that the executives want. Don't forget that FOTR was originally screened at 3.5 hours before the chopping began.


Magpie
Immortal


Oct 6 2012, 3:58am

Post #40 of 54 (280 views)
Shortcut
I was just saying that ... [In reply to] Can't Post

an early reports of a running times that later were proved not to be the final running time might not have been 'incorrect' reports. (as the post I was replying to phrased it)

An early report of a running time might be the actual running time at that moment and that further edits would lengthen or shorten the film thus resulting in a later report with a different time.

Editing is editing. I doesn't matter who is suggesting the editing. And, for my point, it doesn't matter if edits lengthened or shortened the film. The different reports of running time could be just mistakes or incorrect or wild guesses or they could be a factor of a moving target. The running time is actually changing. That's the only point I was trying to make.


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


Carne
Tol Eressea

Oct 7 2012, 12:13am

Post #41 of 54 (308 views)
Shortcut
Contacted my local cinema [In reply to] Can't Post

They start selling tickets tomorrow and told me the current running length they know of is 2 hours and 44 minutes (which makes sense as it probably has to be written on the tickets) Smile


Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Oct 7 2012, 12:22am

Post #42 of 54 (252 views)
Shortcut
Wow! [In reply to] Can't Post

That's big news! Where are you if you don't mind me asking.

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

The Hall of Fire


Carne
Tol Eressea

Oct 7 2012, 12:24am

Post #43 of 54 (231 views)
Shortcut
Norway [In reply to] Can't Post

They start selling tickets all over the country tomorrow Smile


Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Oct 7 2012, 12:33am

Post #44 of 54 (225 views)
Shortcut
Thanks [In reply to] Can't Post

I thought that was the case but I didn't want to assume.

I think that's pretty big news!

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

The Hall of Fire


Carne
Tol Eressea

Oct 7 2012, 12:35am

Post #45 of 54 (225 views)
Shortcut
I'll try to ask some more cinemas here and see if they confirm the same [In reply to] Can't Post

Smile


Estel78
Tol Eressea

Oct 7 2012, 12:37am

Post #46 of 54 (234 views)
Shortcut
I would take such infos from theaters with a huge grain of salt. // [In reply to] Can't Post

 


Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Oct 7 2012, 12:37am

Post #47 of 54 (201 views)
Shortcut
Great! // [In reply to] Can't Post

 

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

The Hall of Fire


Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor

Oct 7 2012, 12:57am

Post #48 of 54 (235 views)
Shortcut
I do, but ... [In reply to] Can't Post

I do think that they would have to be at least in the ballpark if the are selling for more than just one showing.

'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

The Hall of Fire


Estel78
Tol Eressea

Oct 7 2012, 1:08am

Post #49 of 54 (221 views)
Shortcut
I've never bought tickets so early... [In reply to] Can't Post

It would be interesting to know if showtimes are specified (if there's more than one show you can buy tickets to) and whether it's just for the premiere. My guess would be no and yes, precisely because they don't have a running time and without that they can't make a schedule.


(This post was edited by Estel78 on Oct 7 2012, 1:13am)


DanielLB
Immortal


Oct 7 2012, 9:04am

Post #50 of 54 (185 views)
Shortcut
Great news, if true. [In reply to] Can't Post

It's a really similar length to the rest of the trilogy, so I'd be happy with that. And if there is an EE, it would take it over 3 hours (hopefully).

I contacted my local cinema(s) earlier in the week to find out if they will be showing in 48fps etc. I also asked if they knew the running length. They haven't got back to me yet. Cool

Want Hobbit Movie News? Hobbit Headlines of the Week!


First page Previous page 1 2 3 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.