| ethomaz said: Little story... two big movies... that's the problem. $$$$$$$$ |
Three movies. Yeah. Let that sink in.
Less than 300 pages of original material in what was a very entertaining and engaging children's book as well as a fantastic pre-quel to an epic. Doesn't exactly translate well into a 6 hour saga, which is presumably how long all three movies will add up to, possibly even longer with the invevitable Director's Cut.
Lord of the Rings clocks in at about 1500 pages by comparison and yet The Hobbit somehow gets translated into the same amount of screen time.
So yes; money.
WB/MGM would probably be a lot more hesitant to put forth the investment for a single film Hobbit that could have effectively been done in one 150-180 minute film. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey alone is 169 minutes.
But, all LoTR/Tolkien fans have undoubtedly seen all the sets and pre-production materials and work that was done prior to production; no expense was spared. Very elaborate and expensive method of film making.
Given that the original LoTR trilogy was shot all at once, it sort of (from a logistical and cost to earnings perspective) makes sense to essentially sell movie goers three parts of a single story. Unfortunately, that meant dragging a relatively short story out excessively.
Other than a lot of the Middle Earth backstory, it really didn't feel like much happened in An Unexpected Journey. Even less so than The Fellowship of the Ring, which really just felt like a set up story for the upcoming greater story arc.
