blogs_blog_247

I completely agree with you, ET. That movie blew my mind with how awesomely spectacular it was. I mean, all of the Lord of the Rings movies were good, but The Hobbit gives even The Return of the King, the best of the classic trilogy (well deserved, since it won 11 Oscars) a run for its money!

 

~B~

Well, theoretically, they could have split The Lord of the Rings into more films, since the series was originally published in six books rather than three. So technically, they wouldn't even have to make up arbitrary checkpoints to double their number of films.

 

Of course, it shouldn't be ignored that The Lord of the Rings was pretty ambitious for its time, and so it could have been risky to have made it more ambitious than it already was.

 

Anyway, I enjoyed the movie too. I think the higher framerate was a very nice feature and I hope more filmmakers will start taking advantage of that now that high-framerate projectors are in so many theaters. I had read the book before watching the movie, but overall I was pleased with how many key elements of the book were kept-- I had expected at least a few of the major songs to be excised for being "too silly", just as Tom Bombadil's whole segment was cut out of The Fellowship of the Ring for its level of whimsy, but instead the most important songs were maintained and put to music appropriate for the tone and gravity of their scenes. I hope that trend continues in the rest of the franchise.