I think Peter Jackson and the producers would know well enough that they'd have to produce nothing short of an amazing follow up to the LOTR movies... there would be massive repercussions if they didn't.
I will add that it is 2hrs 46 mins. But it was over before I knew it. It's didn't feel like 3 hours. I was like "That's it!" So the pacing is stellar.
And just you know, it was supposed to just 2 movies but they shot so much footage that Peter Jackson turned it into a trilogy because 2 4 hours moving was asking too much and it would have been a shame to cut a bunch of stuff out.
Went to see it yesterday and it didn't seem almost 3 hrs long to me either. when it went black and ended i figured there was atleast another hour to go.
Saw this last night and loved it!! I also have to say, as someone who has pretty much always read the book before I see the movie, the nature of adaptations is that there are ALWAYS bits that are left out, no matter how long the book. And it's always so disappointing! The hobbit is such and good story that I for one am thrilled they are separating it. If it allows for a book to be fully (or at least more fully) translated to film instead of a two hour abridged version, I'd watch 3 part versions of any book to movie adaptation.
"Every time you spend money, you're casting a vote for the kind of world you want."
Originally Posted by devildog_dk
Reply With Quote
Lena 
.jpg "ballpythonluvr's Avatar")
