The most suitable breakdown: movies vs books

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

No, that would drag out the story interminably. I believe PJ made the right overall decision in shooting “Lord if the Rings” as a trilogy– and I don’t think that’s what most criticisms have been about, anyway.

I agree, I think that the number of films (and their length) is fine. For my part, however, I would have made a film of The Hobbit first. Even if this hypothetical "The Hobbit" was three hours long like any of the films of The Lord of the Rings I think it could work. I think an embellished "The Hobbit" PJ-style could also have worked as two films - three being a bridge too far - but that it's unnecessary. Either way, however, I think The Hobbit should have come first, with "The Necromancer" and the mystery of Gollum and the Ring left ambiguous until "The Fellowship of the Ring." I think The Lord of the Rings works far better as a narrative which follows on from The Hobbit than The Hobbit does as a prequel to The Lord of the Rings.

I think adapting The Lord of the Rings as a single film would be impossible.