I was planning to see it before this thread informed me that it is to be a trilogy. Nine hours is far too much to ask of me, especially for a book of its size. I could read the book faster than that. Is it too much to ask to get those of us who are vaguely interested but are not hardcore fantasy fans there and back again in two hours? I like 3D eye candy, but too much gives me a tummyache.
Do you seriously think The Hobbit is going to be presented to the public like that? Did you see the LOTR trilogy all in one setting? Obviously not -it is going to be presented in three parts in three consecutive years like the last time. At least that's my understanding.
I hadn't thought all that much about it, frankly. As I said I'm not at all a fantasy person. I read it in the 9th grade because it was assigned in class. And it was a pleasant enough read. Certainly not as "rotten" as some books assigned to us *cough...Sense and Sensibility* Now that I do think about it, it does make sense that the Lords of Hollywood would milk it for all its worth as they've done with Harry Potter 7 and whichever Twilight book it was that also got split. But it seems to me that creating a trilogy where there was not one to begin with is, by itsef, as big a heresy as any superfan is likely to find once the movie premiers. But that's ok me with me. Like I said, not a core fan. I'll save my 10 dollars. Between 9 hours or nothing, this consumer is choosing nothing. But I have no doubts that Hollywood has that already figured too. It's just business.
Poll
