How long will LOTR be? what would you like...

I'd settle for a good 4 hours...it really can't be any longer... tho they'll probably make it three... thoughts?

Are you speaking of each indiviual movie to be four hours each? In an interview published at AICN, Peter Jackson states, "I imagine the films will have an approx 6 hour running time." I am assuming he means that each film will be two hours long. If anyone happened to miss the interview you can read it here: Page 1 of Q&A with PJ Page 2 of Q&A with PJ

I know what PJ said, but in the best of all possible worlds, they would be long enough to do the story it's proper justice.

Yeah, I'd go for 2-3 hours per movie

PJ seems a bit lazy... Only 6 hours!!

I'd like 36 hours personally, but I'll settle for about 6 total.

NewLine Cinema(?) may want to keep it within a target length to support a younger audience, so we might get what happened to TPM - perfectly better footage left on the cutting room floor in favor of what he thinks the kiddies might like. This doesn't mean he's Lucas, but he has people to answer to. AND this is in view of the fact that he actually Wants it to be a 'hard PG-13'. I'd figure 2:15 to 2:30 tops, but nothing epic - there's too many newcomers that won't appreciate the magnification.

Yes, 2:30 would be good enough for me, but I wish it was longer!

Fellowship would have to be 3 hours, minimum - all the characters are introduced... all the themes are laid out. TT and RotK should be a minimum 2:30, but I wouldn't mind them being 3 hours as well. One problem is how Jackson is going to edit TT... since the story is parallel and all, and some events happen at the same time as events in RotK. That could dramatically increase or decrease the length, and do the inverse to RotK, I think. 4h each? Please, yes! But it won't happen...

They're cutting so much out of fellowship it'll probably just make 2 hours. Sad.

Really? I thought it was just Bombadil who was a major cut. Besides, the thing is, Fellowship needs to introduce all the characters... the other two films don't. That alone should make it a minimum 3h, IMO. I would NOT settle for 2 hours.

Don't expect to see much of Bree in "Fellowship of the Ring". Frodo and his companions arrive there at night in the rain, meet Strider, and move on, according to what I've been told. We're not likely to be treated to the full council with Elrond, either. That would take up an immense amount of time. We'll be lucky to get 1-2 sentences from Legolas and Gloin about why they came. The first movie is expected BY SOME PEOPLE (not all) to end with the death of Boromir (which has already been filmed) or just the breaking of the fellowship (as in the book).

No Man in the Moon? Very disappointed. But, in the Jackson´s scripts for two movies there was and attack to the hobbits´ room at the Prancing Pony. Do you think that also has been cut?

Bree isn't gonna be that bad, looks like there should be some good stuff in the Prancing Pony. Barrow Downs are cut, and yes, it's ending with Boromir's death. Lothlorien's gonna be really short.

Well, it does have to end on a semi-dramatic note, even though it's just Part I. In the "Fellowship of the Ring" game from Interplay, you have to rescue Frodo from Dol Guldur to beat it :P

I've heard conflicting reports on whether the attack at Bree stays in. I would advise people to disregard whatever they've heard about the original two-part script. Although Jackson will undoubtedly keep as much material as he feels is useful, he was given a great opportunity to expand the story and reinsert many details he knows the fans would like (such as Lothlorien). I've deliberately tried NOT to find out plot details because I don't want the movies to be spoiled for me. But also, there are so many people poking and prying around that you can glean all sorts of weird spoilers from the Net. The things which I read that agree with what I heard through private sources are generally what I've said here. I'm trying to get fans to look at this as a Cinderella story. There have been many, many different variations on that tale (more than 500 according to the official Web site for "Ever After"), but people still recognize and appreciate the story for what it is: a timeless tale of love and poignant justice prevailing over selfishness and injustice. I think THE LORD OF THE RINGS will eventually develop that kind of staying power, and I hope there are many adaptations in the future.

The Cinderella permutation method is a difficult gospel to preach, but I think that after it's all said and done, there will be many people who actually prefer Jackson's 'take'. History meets Hollywood in plenty of well-known embellishments like Braveheart, Rob Roy, Joan of Arc and Last of the Mohicans. These compress intermission timeframes and market 'genre' expectations like x-amount of relationship/action/suspence/treachery. What we finally get is a very satisfactory product which meets the expectations of those not first acquainted with the real history, and who thereafter are delighted to get the real story/grisly details behind what they at first took to be real history. LOTR will not be so, because the "Real History" has preceded the modern interpretation, and we will all be armchair historians armed with 'facts' and 'I-was-there-experience'. But it doesn't need to be that way, and Jackson's impending permutation does not in any way cancel the vitality and immortality of the actual history. Just because this post-Bakshi endeavor will attract large numbers of new fans does Not mean that the core has fallen out of Tolkien, or that Tolkien has been betrayed. He's alive and well in Valinor, and probably laughing. A piece of Tolkien's own mind which bares on this is that he himself chose to view him work as 'interpretation' of lost lore. It little matters that he interpreted it out of his head -the 'fact' is that it was there, timeless, ageless, ancient. His translation effort was merely a permutation of "real" history. (I can comfortably fit the Lost Tales (BOLT) into the entire cosmology as being Another Perspective of Middle-Earth's "real history".) Consider how many permutations there are of the King Arthur/Merlin epic: Excalibur and Merlin (Sam Niel) might be different as day and night while using identical characters and situations. But the perspective and moral lessons are different, and the viewer wins both ways. I'm personally looking forward to a Jackson take which is different enough from the 'true' version that I'll walk away with more. If we're all blessed with long life, we'll see the next generations' version. (Maybe every 10-15 years or so?) All future progeny will be treated to Tolkien 'tales' which will vary from his original as much as our modern takes on Arthur and Merlin depart from Mallory's Morte D'Arthur. And it's all good.

Perhaps. I can see your point. I think it´s the same as in greek mythology. I´m not and expert but as i see, there was a myth in the collective consciousness, partially fixed by Homer. Over that myth the tragic athors often threw different versions. When i read Esquilo´s Agamemnon, i saw a noble character, a hero who must decide between his daughter´s life and his royal duties. When i read Euripides´ Electra i found a very different Agamemnon. He was no more a hero. He was only a jerk. Different views; no problem. But when i re-read Agamemnon i found a noble king, but with a marked tendency to be a little jerk. A richer view possibly. With Tolkien it will be the same. If i reread Sil. (surely i will), i´m sure i´ll find new elements in Hunthor´s death (you know why), and surely i´ll visualize Ainunlindale with some influences of Tater´s view, and perhaps some of you will see, from now on, Forlong the Fat with Porkin´s face. A richer view? It all depends of the worth of the influence. I confess guilty of, perhaps, having spoiled forever Forlong´s character . How will the next generations see LOTR? I think it all depends of the worth of Jackson´s view. If he erase Glorfindel the next generations may pass over him without noticing. They may found Arwen´s character a bit dull (not that i´m saying she was, but if you compare with Jackson´s plans...). Perhaps they will think that Gimli´s lines are funny (i have always seen him valiant, loyal and a bit grave, but the movie seems to want making a jester of him). Better? Worse? i don´t know, but i think that LOTR books never will be the same after the movies.

I don't know, FM, that the movie will necessarily change people's reading of the books. I saw the Bakshi cartoon (I know, the horror) before I read LOTR. I do not think it should have been Legolas that helps Aragorn and the hobbits reach the Ford of Bruinen (to cite one example). I am able to keep the two as separate entities in my mind, and in the case of the cartoon, block it out, LOL!

Dwarves appeared in Time Bandits as the comic relief, feature as jesters of sorts in many medeival films, and are given by Tolkien a rustic, redneck feel in comparison to the racially pure ethnocentricity of Tolkien's WASP Elves. If none of you understand what I'm saying, then re-read the passages where Tolkien explains where all the races of mankind other than the Elf-friends come from - the East and South. Always remember and do not lose sight of the fact that Tolkien was a product of his WASP times. Hell, he doesn't even blink for the Irish of Scots!! (We know Scots need no introduction or validation, of course. SO. Every movie needs comic relief, and the closest Jackson will get to it, without touching the 'main-character' nobility of the Hobbits, the gruesome horror of Gollum and the WASP elegance of Aragorn and Legolas, is to pick on who's left. Hopefully Gimli will have his shining moments. But be aware that Tolkien himself singled out Gimli as the foil (in comparison to the 'finer' characters) of hard headedness, ignorance, immaturity and ignobility. Tolkien was no saint, and his racial underpinnings are in there.