The Big Picture: Is The Hobbit Too Long?

[Padwolf]

The Hobbit was neither too long nor too short. It was precisely the length it should be. ... Yeah that was pretty bad.

I think it was a good length. It was well paced, it held my attention the whole time. I loved it and I would love to go and see it again.

 

[karloss01]

being a guy who has never read any of the LOTR books or the hobbit, I say the film was just right in length. I found Fellowship to be a bit long because of the lack of action in it (I'm a action junkie) but I still liked the film.

 

[Ulquiorra4sama]

I actually think the helicopter shots and the travel time are some of the most important things about LOTR and The Hobbit series as well.

I was thinking to myself what exactly it is about these series that make them so appealing. What i concluded was that what Tolkien did so incredibly well was to create an amazing world people would want to see more of. He laid out the landscape and then wrote a story of people travelling through it, stopping to show the different people and sights along the way. It really does allow for some much needed escapism, and Middle-Earth is by now a place a lot of people feel familiar with (at least the ideas of the races in them).

Personally i love LOTR and The Hobbit and so long as i'm not bored during a movie i'm not going to complain about length.

 

[Kenjitsuka]

What the HELL, Bob?!
I'm halfway through, interested and BOOM: without warning you start about ending of the movie and what the NEXT ones will be about.... SPOILERS, dude!

Not everyone lives in the US where this might have been out for a long time, you know?

 

[maninahat]

I thought it was too long, and though I wasn't bored, I was fucking frustrated. "Bilbo, stop fucking around and let the story start!"

I think there are parts that are easy to cut without destroying the important mood, or story points, or vital character rapport. For instance, did we really need to see a ten minute scene involving the old Bilbo and Frodo? All that needed to be established was that this was Bilbo's story, and it starts at Bag End, long before the Lord of the Rings. That only needs to take a minute at the most.

Though the Bag End scene needed to be long enough to contain all that characterisation and place a sense of value on the Shire, I think we got the point that Bilbo wanted to stay at home far quicker than the movie assumes. You see, most movies have reluctant heroes: Indiana Jones and Blade Runner, for instance, make it clear that Dr Jones isn't all that interested in getting bogged down in chasing the Holy Grail or shooting robots. It makes that clear within just a few lines of dialogue and a minute of screen time. Bilbo takes forever, and time is devoted to restating his reluctance over and over. First you have him reading of some contract, and then he has to listen to some dwarves, and then he has to listen to two lectures from Gandalf, and then finally having a change of heart after everyone left.

Then there is all that business beefing up the knife the Nazgul will eventually use to stab Frodo in that one scene. It was quite the anti-climax when it was revealed, because whilst it is important to have some potent of Sauron's return, we already got that long ago with Radaghast's recount of the creepy crypt.

 

[JaceArveduin]

Well the obvious answer is to cut out the framing various other items that were added to build the overall franchise rather the movie. The morgul knife, Radagast the brown, Gandalf's meeting with the big wigs of Middle Earth in Rivendale, etc. They all build the world but don't advance the story and its likely they never will since they pertain to events in the Lord of the Rings and not the Hobbit. They could easily be cut, though its obvious the film makers wanted to include that world building. It's really more relevant to people who have already seen the Lord of Rings though as to someone who knows nothing, these scenes would be pointless and confusing.

Actually, they did go off and kick the Necromancer out of Dol Guldor, it happens when Gandalf leaves them. He doesn't specifically tell you, nor does Gandalf specifically tell the Dwarves, but that's what him and the others are going to go do. I'm not sure if Elrond and Galadriel had anything to do with it, but why not add them in for the movie?

 

[maninahat]

Well the obvious answer is to cut out the framing various other items that were added to build the overall franchise rather the movie. The morgul knife, Radagast the brown, Gandalf's meeting with the big wigs of Middle Earth in Rivendale, etc. They all build the world but don't advance the story and its likely they never will since they pertain to events in the Lord of the Rings and not the Hobbit. They could easily be cut, though its obvious the film makers wanted to include that world building. It's really more relevant to people who have already seen the Lord of Rings though as to someone who knows nothing, these scenes would be pointless and confusing.

I think they needed the meeting, if in a somewhat truncated form, just so that the movie can actually have a female character appear at some point. It's a serious sausagefest, which is something you don't get in big budget movies these days. It's that sort of thing that makes my girlfriend dismiss this (and Star Wars) as some boy story...it totally is, but normally these movies make some kind of effort to appeal to the average woman in the audience, even if it means sticking in as much female empowerment as possible into a franchise which barely even has women.

 

[MacSkops]

I thought the length of the movie was just right if anything. It help my interest up until the very end.

My only problem was with the Rock giants fighting scene. It just felt unnecessary and if it were taken out, nothing would've changed.

 

[maximara]

I'd have to completely agree with what Bob said. It's long, but held my interest the whole time. Then again, I could eat this fantasy stuff up all the time, so I might not be the best metric for judging it.

It is interesting that the first feature length film (Birth of a Nation aka Clansman 1915) clocks in at 190 Minutes (3 1/6 hours). Napoléon (April 1927) is 4 hours 10 minutes but there is an even longer 9 hour 22 minute version from May of that year. The Ten Commandments (1956) clocks in at 4 hours, Gone with the Wind (1939) is 3 Hours 46 Minutes long, and so on. If you have enough there your movie is not too long or too short.

While the pictures of it were used I am surprised that the comparison to Rankin/Bass 1977 made for TV version (77 minutes long) wasn't made.

 

[spiffleh]

Was I bored? No. Was it too long? YES. Even though I was enjoying myself, I started anticipating the end and got anxious when it wasn't happening. I kind of would preferred it if they broke it into 4, shorter movies instead of 3 looong ones (assuming the others are as long as this one). I knew my thinking the movie was too long coloured my opinion of the movie negatively.

 

[RaikuFA]

Of course it's too long, jus like the other films it's just 3 hours of walking and talking.

Even the trees fucking walked.

 

[Furrama]

I don't think it was too long. HOWEVER. I can see where some things needed to be cut. The giants needed to be cut, they were a little toooooooo goofy. Just... have a storm, it doesn't even last that long. The point is to get them into a cave, just have that happen because bad storm.

But I see more places where things needed to be added. I don't really get a good feel for the younger Bilbo. I know who OLD Bilbo is, but the young one not so much, and he doesn't come off as charming or likable as in the book. He's just... " so put out." Unlike the book, I still don't understand why he would go with them. He gives us no reason to.

But the biggest crime is Thorin. At first he's okay with Bilbo, then he's not, then he is, then he's not, and then he is, and it just keeps waffling. In the book he's just kindof a no nonsense single minded (somewhat nasty but ultimately good hearted) guy. He just uses Bilbo to get what he wants. He has issues with Bilbo sure, but he doesn't suddenly start going off on him for... I don't know, accidentally falling in a spot where anyone would fall. I just don't like the way they handled him in this movie.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Well the obvious answer is to cut out the framing various other items that were added to build the overall franchise rather the movie. The morgul knife, Radagast the brown, Gandalf's meeting with the big wigs of Middle Earth in Rivendale, etc. They all build the world but don't advance the story and its likely they never will since they pertain to events in the Lord of the Rings and not the Hobbit. They could easily be cut, though its obvious the film makers wanted to include that world building. It's really more relevant to people who have already seen the Lord of Rings though as to someone who knows nothing, these scenes would be pointless and confusing.

Actually, they did go off and kick the Necromancer out of Dol Guldor, it happens when Gandalf leaves them. He doesn't specifically tell you, nor does Gandalf specifically tell the Dwarves, but that's what him and the others are going to go do. I'm not sure if Elrond and Galadriel had anything to do with it, but why not add them in for the movie?

Yeah, but its still irrelevant to the story. The story isn't about Sauron and his return, its about Bilbo and the Dwarfs going to the lonely mountain and kill a dragon (which someone else kills in a bit of poorly structured writing from Tolkien). Adding these scenes adds nothing to that central point of the movie. It's unrelated. We don't cut to the shire to check in on the sackville hobbits looking to loot Bag end while Bilbo is gone because although it is happening at the same time, it does not contribute anything to the plot. You could easily cut that section out and it would have little effect on main plot of the movie. That's a sign of extraneous material. As a general rule, anything that can be cut without affecting the plot should be cut.

in fact, in the book it's never even mentioned what Gandalf goes off to do, only that he had business elsewhere (and vague mentioning of a Necromancer in some sections without many specifics), and it doesn't change the plot of the book at all.

Well the obvious answer is to cut out the framing various other items that were added to build the overall franchise rather the movie. The morgul knife, Radagast the brown, Gandalf's meeting with the big wigs of Middle Earth in Rivendale, etc. They all build the world but don't advance the story and its likely they never will since they pertain to events in the Lord of the Rings and not the Hobbit. They could easily be cut, though its obvious the film makers wanted to include that world building. It's really more relevant to people who have already seen the Lord of Rings though as to someone who knows nothing, these scenes would be pointless and confusing.

I think they needed the meeting, if in a somewhat truncated form, just so that the movie can actually have a female character appear at some point. It's a serious sausagefest, which is something you don't get in big budget movies these days. It's that sort of thing that makes my girlfriend dismiss this (and Star Wars) as some boy story...it totally is, but normally these movies make some kind of effort to appeal to the average woman in the audience, even if it means sticking in as much female empowerment as possible into a franchise which barely even has women.

I think its far more sexist to feel that a woman needs to be inserted. "What women can only relate to other women?" That sounds moderately sexist. Maybe, maybe not.

Both this and the Lord of Rings were not ringing endorsement for female empowerment though, none of the fellowship or the party of dwarfs were female and none of the major characters of the Hobbit, and very few in the Lord of the Rings, were female. I'm not sure if trying to insert from feminism would fit the movie as they would have to dedicate more script to it and it would be an entirely movie produced addition (which caries its own possible negative and positive repercussions). It would have been interesting though if they made some of the dwarfs female though, but it would probably have made someone mad because "YOU MADE A ORIE A CHICK! HE WAS MY FAVORITE" (despite the fact that the dwarfs have maybe one bit one characteristic to them and are one dimensional as hell).

Also, Galadriel is probably not the best female to insert int eh story as she kind of does nothing but look pretty and manipulate others. (Both of which fit into two sexist notion of what women are).

 

[Darknacht]

Well the obvious answer is to cut out the framing various other items that were added to build the overall franchise rather the movie. The morgul knife, Radagast the brown, Gandalf's meeting with the big wigs of Middle Earth in Rivendale, etc. They all build the world but don't advance the story and its likely they never will since they pertain to events in the Lord of the Rings and not the Hobbit. They could easily be cut, though its obvious the film makers wanted to include that world building. It's really more relevant to people who have already seen the Lord of Rings though as to someone who knows nothing, these scenes would be pointless and confusing.

Actually, they did go off and kick the Necromancer out of Dol Guldor, it happens when Gandalf leaves them. He doesn't specifically tell you, nor does Gandalf specifically tell the Dwarves, but that's what him and the others are going to go do. I'm not sure if Elrond and Galadriel had anything to do with it, but why not add them in for the movie?

They should not have been added to the movie for the same reason that the Lord of the Rings did not periodically cut back to the Shire to show us what the Gaffer is doing today, because its not relevant to the story being told. There was a lot of stuff that was added in that would have been fine in an extended cut but added nothing to the story being told.

What the HELL, Bob?!
I'm halfway through, interested and BOOM: without warning you start about ending of the movie and what the NEXT ones will be about.... SPOILERS, dude!

Not everyone lives in the US where this might have been out for a long time, you know?

Its a 75 year old book, that has been released in dozens of languages across the globe, next you'll be complaining that Shakespeare references need spoiler warnings.

 

[SimGrave]

Not surprised Bob didn't found it too long. Whenever I think "white", he says "black".
An example of that are his best and worst top ten. Most of his worst were in my best, and vice versa.
I don't mind mindless action, I don't mind having to think, I don't mind gratuitous nudity.
I usually just want to be surprised.
Hobbit didn't surprised me at all and no I didn't read the book.
I was too long. Yes the dinner scene could have been shorted... it didn't made me care about any of them.
It didn't make believe in what they are. Plus their leader is so cliché and one dimension, it's not even funny.
They tried to make something epic out of something that should have been more candid.
They should have kept it to a smaller scope.
The gnome scene was useless and didn't brought anything to the story.
The movies drags for way too long.
Well no need to hate me, it's just my opinion... I didn't insult anybody here.

 

[Smertnik]

I didn't feel the film's length at all, even when I watched it a second time. It was actually rather refreshing to see a book adaptation that didn't feel the need to rush things and took its time (even though I never read The Hobbit).

Although I guess the necromancer side plot could have been easily cut out in theory (unless it's supposed to be somehow related to Bilbo's journey).

 

[RedDeadFred]

They could have completely cut out Radagast. We aren't supposed to be worrying about the bigger evil building up, the story is more about Bilbo. Adding the doom and gloom of the Necromancer just overshadows what's really going on. They probably could have cut out the intro that's starting right before Bilbo's party. I just don't see how that was needed at all and they probably could have trimmed down a bit of the exposition.

There. Not only have I fixed the dual personality problem of the movie (the main quest has a more upbeat and silly feel while the Necromancer stuff is more in line with the feeling of the LotR trilogy) but I have also shaved off at least half an hour.

Edit: I should probably mention that the only reason they added all of that stuff was so that they could make it into three movies. AT MOST they only needed 2. Now they've built up the Necromancer so much that they are obviously going to be spending extensive time investigating him.
Also, anyone else notice the blatant foreshadowing of Galadriel telling Gandalf that she'll come and help him if he needs her? I'd bed 50 bucks that Gandalf has a showdown with the Necromancer or Witch King but gets beaten. As he's about to be finished off, Galadriel will show up and save him. And just so everyone knows now before it happens: even as the Grey, Gandalf would fucking waste the Witch King so just ignore that when it happens in the future.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

You know who should have been left out? Radaghast. If you absolutely needed to put him in, then put him in the second film, when they actually get to Mirkwood.

I felt that the subplot about Dol Guldur could have been handled better. (In the book, Gandalf was already aware of the Necromancer's presence, and he even found Thorin's father in the fort's dungeon, where Thrain gave Gandalf the map and key)

I mean, Radaghast shows up not one scene after a flashback to Azanulzabar. It felt like a short story slapped into the plot.

"Hey Gandalf, got any other wizards?"

"Sure, let me tell you the story of Radaghast the Brown."

And then immediately cut away from the group. It was some real whiplash for me. We had about a minute back with the dwarves before cutting away to Mirkwood.

 

[ResonanceSD]

It's long, but I loved it! There wasn't a single part of the movie which felt like it was boring.

And he didn't ruin my favourite childhood book, so bonus.