I hated the Hobbit book entirely based on the "voice" of the narration. The story itself seemed fine, so I'm sure I'll enjoy the moves more than I did the book.

Funny, for me it's almost the other way around. :D

i dont quite follow you, do u mean alternate ending, cause return of the king has the same ending as the before they leave on the ship, sam goes back home,, ridley scott on the other hands make directors cut and its a whole new movie

It sounds like there are some pacing issues, and the story takes awhile to become interesting, but overall the movie is fun and entertaining.

It's been quite some time since I've seen it (theatrical release), but I do remember several climactic scenes following one after another at the end of RotK where I thought the movie could have just ended, and yet it kept going. Specifically, there was one point I remember when Frodo and Samwise are laying on the molten rock, ready to die after the quest had been completed. I was prepared to praise the movie for such a brave gut-punch of an ending, but then they get lifted up by an eagle to take part in a long 45 minutes of wrap-up jubilation. By the end of that (and a couple more scenes where I figured it was probably over, but wasn't) I was absolutely exhausted.

Same thing with King Kong, though I don't really remember specifically the points where I thought it might end (I just remember thinking it was a lot like RotK). I would have to watch it again. The problem is that I simply don't want to.

Lost interest when they announced multiple parts and 3D. I'll wait until it's out as a rental.

So a 1 hour 15 minutes crap is better than 3 3+ hour movies?

From what I see of the reviews, most negative points were already there in the books - simpler than LOTR, not much character development due to way too many dwarves, etc..

But putting all of that into 3 movies is probably a big negative too. I was fine with 2, but 3 is too much for a book of that length, even taking a great deal of stories from the background. One of the main complaints seems to be first part dragging on for too long, for example.

As a fan, though, I do wonder if I will care at all. Many people also found the first part of Fellowship of The Ring to be long and boring, but I loved all of it.

Name 1 1h15-30m movie that explains the story in details like a 3h+ movie would, please. :p

I've never seen one yet.

Which story? I haven't seen a The Hobbit movie before, so I couldn't judge if it was possible to do one in 1h15. But there are certainly short movies that leave nothing to be desired and long movies which are boring. Not every story is made to be told in a 3h+ movie.

Didn't say that, but it's not the length that matter, it's how you use it. I can name plenty of excellent films that don't run much longer than 75 minutes and numerous loooong films, including trilogies, that are nothing more than festering turds.

Elenarie probably means the cartoon adaptation from the 70's. I didn't watch that one either.

That's why they're making a 13-part miniseries of Fox in Socks, clocking in at just over 29 hours. The tweedle beetle bottle puddle paddle battle spans 4 episodes, like any decent battle should. Once the noodle poodle gets involved, that's another full episode right there. It will be the most epic piece of cinema EVER CREATED.

Let me look in my bookshelf here...
The Hobbit - 250 pages
The Fellowship of The Ring - 455 pages, (smaller font, larger pages.)


The Fellowship movie left out some details (details that wouldn't have fitin Peter Jacksons view of Middle Earth), but summed up just about everything in 3 hours quite well.

I'm a really slow reader, I savor. I can read the Hobbit in 5 hours. Supposedly each film is going to be 2 hours and 45 minutes. That is almost 8 hours dedicated to a small simplistic adventure story. NOT a grand scale epic like The Lord of The Rings.