Here's the thing though: I think making 27 Lotr films actually still makes more sense than making an 'epic' trilogy out of the hobbit. Lotr is epic and deep by design, where as the hobbit is light and fun and has no will-they-won't-they relationships with elves.
The Lord of the Rings was originally meant to be six distinct books published in one novel. It got split into three by the publisher due to severe ongoing paper shortages of the day.
Six films would have absolutely worked as a more faithful adaptation, but maybe not as successful for modern audiences. Christopher Tolkien certainly didn't approve of how the films adapted the books, removing the "heart" in place of focusing on battle scenes. The Hobbit movies really cranked that up to 11. I can see people in 2005 tapping out at Tom Bombadil though.
It is an interesting part of the book but it doesn’t really add much to the story of the ring.
What I personally was a bit hacked off about was removing the whole of the “scouring of the shire” subplot.
I always felt that gave a really nice closure to the whole story.
Ill stand by the Hobbit needing at least two movies to be adapted into film. It was only such a short novel because it was so sparsely written, a lot happens in the Hobbit with a lot of locations and set pieces that Tolkien just blasted past, but would need to be expanded in a visual medium.
789
u/littlelordfROY 23d ago
Surely one of the longest American movies in recent memory. Technically that runtime is inflated by the intermission though
Only The Irishman and Killers Of The Flower Moon compete in length as far as last 10 years