As a person who writes jokes about nerd stuff online, I know it’s my duty to be really super snarky about Peter Jackson splitting The Hobbit into three movies, but I just can’t do it. The fact is, I think it might be a good idea. At the very least, I don’t think it’s going to turn out any worse than The Lord of the Rings trilogy.
Here’s why The Hobbit being made into three movies is going to be okay…
About The Same Amount of Stuff Happens In The Hobbit as in Lord of the Rings
Yeah, the Lord of the Rings trilogy is around five-times the length of The Hobbit, but that’s mostly because it’s massively padded out with obsessively detailed descriptions, complicated political intrigue and the literary equivalent of RPG side quests.
If you just run down the major events and action scenes, more or less the same amount of stuff happens. If The Lord of the Rings were written like The Hobbit, the former would be about 800 pages shorter.
How did we put up with this for nine hours?
I’d Rather Spend Three Movies With Bilbo Than Frodo
He gets the whole “throw the ring in Mt. Doom” thing done in the end, but for the majority of the Rings trilogy Frodo is mostly just whiny and useless. Even though Frodo has had five times as many words written about him, I still think of Bilbo as the real “hero” of the family.
Bilbo’s relatable, likeable, smart and at times gets to be a genuine hero — and he doesn’t have a “Sam” trailing around behind him the whole time doing all the hard work for him. Also, Martin Freeman > Elijah Wood.