[jmcenanly]

Can’t believe they broke “The Hobbit” into three parts.
Based on the run time for the first movie of 166 minutes,if they hadn't, the complete Hobbit movie would have run for about 8 hours and 18 minutes. Tha tis a very long time to be sitting in a theater.

[Jonty30]

When they released the Return of the King, my theatre offered tickets to see all three movies, in the extended version, for $50.

Thirteen hours and many minutes, with just a few minutes breaks between each movie so you could reload up with pop and popcorn.

[BillyBoy]

>> Can’t believe they broke “The Hobbit” into three parts. <<
>> Based on the run time for the first movie of 166 minutes,if they hadn't, the complete Hobbit movie would have run for about 8 hours and 18 minutes. That is a very long time to be sitting in a theater. <<

"The Hobbit" is a single book, 310 pages in length.

"The Lord of the Rings" is three books, running 531 pages, 416 pages, and 624 pages.

Yet Peter Jackson adapted BOTH works in movie trilogies running over 8 hours. He clearly had to pad "The Hobbit" story MUCH more to give it the same length as LOTR. I'm optimistic about the movies getting the themes right but I'm worried into going to drag on forever with a ton of excess subplots that weren't in the books. For example, Frodo from LOTR is in the movie adaptation of "The Hobbit" when the character hadn't even been invented yet when the book version was written.