The Borgified Corpse wrote:
Are they still doing this stupid splitting it up into 2 movies thing? Considering The Hobbit is shorter than any 1 of the Lord of the Rings books and each of them only merited 1 film each, I don't see why this is necessary. Not unless they add in load of extra crap from the other books. (I've heard some rumors that a lot of Silmarillion material is going to be included as well.)
I think this splitting books up is starting to be a bad habit. Certainly Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows was a bad test case, since damn near nothing happens in the entirety of Part 1!
the hobbit maybe shorter than any of the books in the series. but it has the greatest of battles. in my opinion.
and deathly hollows would've been a six hour epic if not split in two parts.