Great. 6 more hours of tedious gnome watching for my friend to wax lyrical about in an almost entirely one-way conversation, punctuated only by theatrical yawning from my end.
I was a bit concerned too - because yeah, The Hobbit doesn't feel like two movies to me.
But then I read this piece in today's New York Times.
Registration required, so I summarize: The Hobbit will be one movie, and it will be followed by an as-yet-unnamed sequel that will bridge the 60-year gap between The Hobbit and The Fellowship of the Ring.
I'm with Alex. Excited doesn't cover it: This is my Christmas present from the universe.
4 comments:
But, um ... what's the second Hobbit movie?
That book shouldn't be stretched into a two-parter. That would be a huge mistake.
There /might/ be a good three hours worth of movie in that book, but, knowing Jackson, he's going to aim for two 2.5-hour movies. That's a disaster.
One is enough. Keep it tight, 2, 2.5 hours, tops.
PLEASE!
Great. 6 more hours of tedious gnome watching for my friend to wax lyrical about in an almost entirely one-way conversation, punctuated only by theatrical yawning from my end.
This means I'm going to have to finish reading The Hobbit before this thing comes out. Seems like I have plenty of time, though.
Not really excited about it, but I am interested in seeing this movie when it comes out.
I was a bit concerned too - because yeah, The Hobbit doesn't feel like two movies to me.
But then I read this piece in today's New York Times.
Registration required, so I summarize: The Hobbit will be one movie, and it will be followed by an as-yet-unnamed sequel that will bridge the 60-year gap between The Hobbit and The Fellowship of the Ring.
I'm with Alex. Excited doesn't cover it: This is my Christmas present from the universe.
Post a Comment