|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TheHutt
Gondor
Oct 15 2012, 11:19am
Post #1 of 104
(7298 views)
Shortcut
|
Hobbit AUJ runtime confirmed by Russian distributor
|
Can't Post
|
|
The Russian distributor of "The Hobbit", Karo Premier, confirmed the runtime of "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey". It will be 164 minutes, same number as reported by other sources.
Karo Premier is the Russian distribution partner for Warner Bros.
Source for the news (in Russian):
http://www.henneth-annun.ru/...nnogo-puteshestviya/
Russian LotR/Hobbit Site:
Henneth-annun.ru - the Russian LOTR site
(This post was edited by TheHutt on Oct 15 2012, 11:23am)
|
|
|
redgiraffe
Rohan
Oct 15 2012, 11:27am
Post #3 of 104
(4937 views)
Shortcut
|
Kept getting a little worried they would make these only around two hours each but this renews my hope. 2hours and 44 minutes is a length. I think that's just a few minutes shorter than FOTR.
Now we just need to wait and see how it turns out on the big screen!
-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle
|
|
|
HiddenSpring
Lorien
Oct 15 2012, 11:34am
Post #4 of 104
(4884 views)
Shortcut
|
I expected each film to last around 2 hours and 40 minutes, so this sounds about right.
Seems like we have an 8-hour trilogy.
|
|
|
Valandil ed Imladris
Lorien
Oct 15 2012, 11:50am
Post #5 of 104
(4836 views)
Shortcut
|
and it is the same length as another major blockbuster this year: the dark knight rises was 164 minutes long as well.
|
|
|
Rohirrim Rider
Rivendell
Oct 15 2012, 12:01pm
Post #6 of 104
(4929 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It's 14 minutes shorter than Fellowship
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...which isn't a bad thing at all. It's a fine length for a film, especially for the first of a two-film story divided into three. Like some here I was worried that it would be closer to two hours, though realistically I thought perhaps two and a half - which I still would have felt slightly cheated with!
So - and spoilers for the assumed break point - if it's this long with the ending being the Eagles then it really must have been too long with the whole of Beorn, Mirkwood and the barrels as well. I'll miss them not being there in December but hopefully this at least helps silence the cynics who didn't believe Jackson's reasoning that they had simply got too much story to tell.
(This post was edited by Rohirrim Rider on Oct 15 2012, 12:03pm)
|
|
|
dave_lf
Gondor
Oct 15 2012, 12:11pm
Post #7 of 104
(4978 views)
Shortcut
|
|
So for all you trilogy detractors...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...remember when you watch the thing this winter that they would have had to cut an entire hour of what you're seeing if they'd stuck with two.
(This post was edited by dave_lf on Oct 15 2012, 12:12pm)
|
|
|
Misto
Lorien
Oct 15 2012, 12:33pm
Post #8 of 104
(4913 views)
Shortcut
|
will depend on the manner of your return... um sorry - wrong movie! The kind of material that extra hour is filled up with.
I must admit that albeit excited to watch I'm still a little sceptical towards the splitting in three parts. We'll see.
|
|
|
Estel78
Tol Eressea
Oct 15 2012, 12:38pm
Post #9 of 104
(4860 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Still not sure how the heck PJ ended up with that much footage.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I mean, they should be having a pretty good understanding how much screentime a page of a script is. How come they didn't already realize at the script stage that they wouldn't be able to cram all that into two films? I guess they didn't stick too closely to the initial script.
But hey, i'm not complaining. 
|
|
|
redgiraffe
Rohan
Oct 15 2012, 12:42pm
Post #10 of 104
(4782 views)
Shortcut
|
I doubt that this decision to split into 3 films happened as quickly behind the scenes as it appeared to happen in public. I wouldn't be surprised if they were tossing around this idea 6-8 months ago, maybe even longer.
-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle
|
|
|
Rohirrim Rider
Rivendell
Oct 15 2012, 12:52pm
Post #11 of 104
(4764 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Gievn the constant re-writting of the script for LOTR...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...I think 'not sticking too closely to the initial script' might be a good guess. But not in a bad way - just expanding and developing. Many of the cast members (McKellen especially if I remember rightly) mentioned about having rewritten pages stuffed under their door ready for the next day's shoot as being a common occurence.
|
|
|
Estel78
Tol Eressea
Oct 15 2012, 12:55pm
Post #12 of 104
(4699 views)
Shortcut
|
But they did have an awful lot of time to hone the script before shooting started on the Hobbit due to the MGM hubbub, i believe. Never satisfied, PJ is. 
|
|
|
Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor
Oct 15 2012, 1:03pm
Post #13 of 104
(4780 views)
Shortcut
|
To the run time I predicted a while back! I win!
|
|
|
burgahobbit
Rohan
Oct 15 2012, 1:09pm
Post #14 of 104
(4662 views)
Shortcut
|
There should be a lot of time for character development! Who would have thought back when the hobbit movies were confirmed that the first six chapters of The Hobbit would be 2 hours and 44 minutes! These movies are going to be awesome!
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor
Oct 15 2012, 1:10pm
Post #15 of 104
(4733 views)
Shortcut
|
That it was you that reported on the report that the running time was going to be just over 2 hours, with the worry that since the last report that you reported on (the changed ending point) turned out to be true, this one would as well.
But maybe I just dreamed that. 
In any event, this (still not absolutely confirmed, but pretty sure) running time is just a bit longer than I expected, and I am quite pleased with it if true.
'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
|
|
|
dave_lf
Gondor
Oct 15 2012, 1:12pm
Post #16 of 104
(4707 views)
Shortcut
|
I continue to fear that my final reaction will be "there's a decent movie in there somewhere if they'd just cut out all the junk".
|
|
|
stoutfiles
Rohan
Oct 15 2012, 1:13pm
Post #17 of 104
(4695 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think he's pulling from the EE
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I guess he could move some flashback scenes over to AUJ, but would they work out of order? It's more than likely that AUJ will have the smallest amount of EE material we've seen so far.
Either way I'm happy about the run time.
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor
Oct 15 2012, 1:18pm
Post #19 of 104
(4705 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm willing to put up with the junk
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
In order to get the decent movie. My fear is that a shorter running time would have had just as much junk, and less "decent movie".
'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
|
|
|
dave_lf
Gondor
Oct 15 2012, 1:19pm
Post #20 of 104
(4670 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm surprised it's nailed down this early
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I guess WB doesn't smile on 11th-hour editing. Either that or Jackson doesn't just care to repeat the experience.
|
|
|
Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor
Oct 15 2012, 1:21pm
Post #21 of 104
(4680 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Your memory does not serve you, in this case
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
In fact, quite the opposite occurred.
Here is the thread.
In the thread, which was focused on the "2 hour" rumor from the French Tolkien site, I said that the film would likely be between 2hrs and 20 min and 2hrs and 45min, with the latter run time being the most likely. But because a number of people in that thread took the Tolkiendrim rumor to be likely true, I was also called out by macfalk about my "allegedly impeccable source."
Here are the excerpts:
Shelob'sAppetite
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.
macfalk
Was your impeccable inside source mistaken this time?
Shelob'sAppetite
No.
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.
So, I suppose I was one minute off...
This gives me even more faith in my source, who communicated to me about AUJ ending at the eagle rescue.
|
|
|
dave_lf
Gondor
Oct 15 2012, 1:23pm
Post #22 of 104
(4646 views)
Shortcut
|
I guess my real worst fear is that my reaction will be "you couldn't find a good movie in there no matter how much you took out."
|
|
|
redgiraffe
Rohan
Oct 15 2012, 1:25pm
Post #23 of 104
(4614 views)
Shortcut
|
But they did have an awful lot of time to hone the script before shooting started on the Hobbit due to the MGM hubbub, i believe. Never satisfied, PJ is.
That's also true. Unless PJ and WB were discussing this before they started filming, it still seems strange as to how they came up with two scripts and didn't realize how much extra footage this would leave them with.
-Sir are you classified as human
-Negative, I am a meat-popsicle
|
|
|
Shelob'sAppetite
Valinor
Oct 15 2012, 1:30pm
Post #24 of 104
(4628 views)
Shortcut
|
|
And here's a comment of mine I dug up from June
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
In another thread about run time.
I doubt that would happen...It would certainly infuriate fans to simply make three films at around the same length that two films would have been...
It is more likely that we will get three theatrical versions at around 2.5-2.75 hours apiece, or slightly longer. IMO.
This means at least 1.5 more hours of screen time...
I think you confused the fact that I highlighted Tolkiendrim's rumor, as evidence that I believed it. But in that very thread, I argued that we should ignore that French listing, and that 2 hours and 45 minutes was still closest to the mark:
Definitely a false alarm Quote | Reply To This Post
For example, the site lists Iron Man 3, which will not be released until May 2013, as being 120 minutes long. This film is far from completed. In fact, not only is filming not complete on Iron Man 3, but is not set to resume until next month. Can you have a running time for a film that hasn't yet been shot?
So, I think it is very safe to dismiss this information entirely.
It seems that it is quite standard to list films that are expected to be long at 120 minutes. While the 123 minute listing is odd, given that it seems over-precise, I think it was entered as mere speculation (or as a misinterpretation of a comment by PJ).
The MSN listing is interesting, but again, where did they get that information? Personally, I hope that is closer to the mark, but I do not think it likely that PJ has finished cutting the film already.
Unless Warner Bros. has issued a red line on the length of the film, that PJ cannot cross, I would ignore these listings for now.
(This post was edited by Shelob'sAppetite on Oct 15 2012, 1:32pm)
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor
Oct 15 2012, 1:31pm
Post #25 of 104
(4624 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Actually, my memory is pretty darn good!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
From the first post of that very thread that you linked to:
Subject: AUJ: 123 minutes long?
From the TORN front page.
Post: This is not official, but recently, lots of these unofficial rumors with specific info have turned out to be correct.
The post that you linked to was in response saying that you had previously guaranteed that it would be close to three hours and you responding that you had previously said that it would be between 2:20 and 2:45.
So yes at one time you said that it would between 2:20 and 2:45, but you did in fact report on the report that it would be just over 2 hours, with the worry that since previous similar reports (e.g., the ending point) were true, this one might be too.
'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
|
|
|
|
|
1
