Beyond Antares wrote:
The Lord of the Rings: 1157 pages and 3 movies.
The Hobbit: 300 pages...and 3 movies?
Talk about a meaningless statement.
1st. Is the writing style the same between the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings? The answer is no.
2nd. Did Jackson and Co have the option of expanding the material beyond a film release at the time? TEh answer is no.
3rd Was there a lot of material that wasn't included in Jackson's version of those LOTR films? Yes.
Could Jackson and Company included more material from the book's and maintain the same basic level of quality? I think you can make a very strong argument that he could has he did in fact do that to the tune of 35 to nearly an hour on each of the films from theatrical to DVD release.
Why then didn't he release longer versions of those films at the theatre? Because the studio said no.
And her is a very, very important question to ask yourself before complaining about three films. Do you know of any adaptions of small books that have been adapted successfully in a long release form?
I like two examples:
1. Jane Austin's Pride & Prejudice been adapted many times, yet the 8 part miniseries is considered the strongest adaption.
It does have some striking differences from the Hobbit. Its got a lot more dialogue and its far more descriptive, its also al little bit longer.
2. C.S. Forrester's Mr. Midshipman Hornblower made By A&E as 4 two hour miniseries. That book is actually shorter then the Hobbit, the production was an award winner, and like the Hobbit has little dialogue. In my opinion those tv productions are the finest examples of any adaption of those two writers, and both are in long form from similar length books. In the Hornblower case the latter works by A&E I found inferior, but they also were shorter having to cut the material basically in half.
Just because the public is used to having films so heavily edited to get them into a standard 2 to 2 and a half hour length doesn't mean that artist can't actually film the material and let it breathe, and actually be successful in the process.
So we know short stories can be filmed as two hour films (we have lots of examples), we also know that books can be long miniseries, and we know that separate books can be filmed and released a year apart and be successful.
So why is it so hard to understand that a book can be done in long form on film, like a miniseries (always designed with a stronger ended act) work on the big screen?
Is it really so hard to believe?