Wrong, utterly utterly wrong.
Nope. I happen to come from a universe where The Hobbit
is a relatively slender book compared to any one of LOTR's three parts. No amount of reframing the argument can fully lead away from that. I also come from a universe where less happens in The Hobbit
for a number of reasons, not least of which is it's pretty much entirely just about Bilbo's quest (while LOTR branches off from Frodo).
But once the choice was made to tell the story in the third person (like Lotr), to have events take time to actually occur, to show the passage of time and getting from place to place. You are looking at a long story.
But I'm not looking at a trilogy
. Hell, Jackson
wasn't looking at a trilogy until recently. I think you can make a pretty plausible case for the Hobbit to be a three-hour film, and this is for part of the reasons you suggest here - the ability to plausibly expand the setpieces of the novel. And three hours of course would be longer than FOTR was in cinemas.
But past that point you're going to start just draaaaging material out or throwing in bucketloads of Appendices (which, obviously, Jackson plans to do). And even with those Appendices, you're not dealing with the sheer breadth of material that FOTR, TTT or ROTK had to draw on.
Can he pull it off? I hope so. Is it entirely sane to doubt that the director of King Kong and the Lovely Bones may not get things to work? Totally.
Still utter bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.
I was responding to a poster who stated and I quote,"You could tell the entire Hobbit novel
in two hours and forty minutes"
Thats utterly not true, at least not for live action.
What you can do is tell an abridged version of the Hobbit in two hours and forty minutes.
With the exception of short stories, films are generally abridged versions of the original material. They aren't "the entire novel".
No one (at least to the best of my knowledge) here has argued that you can't make an abridged version of a film and have it in a standard film length. We have all of the history of modern cinema to tell us that it is possible.
But the people who seem to just blindly say that there is no way you can film the Hobbit and make it multiple films (which they even said with two) are utterly wrong. Period. There is no literal factual basis to back up their beliefs.
Pride & prejudice over 8 hours and length for the rather faithful BBC production, considered the best telling of the book, its length is within 10 pages of the Hobbit.
A&E coproduction of Mister Midshipmen Hornblower is over 8 hours the book is also nearly the same length (and like the HObbit is very sparse in actual dialogue).
Both of those versions still don't tell the complete novel they are working from, but both tell the most faithful retelling that to date as been made for filmed media.
And we have a large number of long form telling of novels that by and large are far more faithful then standard 2 to 2 and a half hour motion pictures made off those same stories.
Yet for some reason the idea that its being done for theatrical release as opposed to television broadcast makes it an invalid endeavor.
Its utterly ridiculous.
NOw just to add, because I am a rational being, I frequently state that just because you absolutely can tell a long form version of a book in 8 plus hours (or shorter or much longer), doesn't mean that the version being done, here it's Jackson telling of The Hobbit, is going to be well done, or faithful. It could be utterly awful.
But that doesn't change the fact that it is absolutely incorrect to think a true telling of that book is going to be done in 2 hours and forty minutes.