The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey OS Thread: OVER 1B WW!

[Michael Seng Wah]

Suppose they would have made The Hobbit first in 2 parts at the time LotR was actually made. Let us further assume that it would have made slightly less than what LotR actually made. What would LotR now make in 3 sequels?

 

I guess the BO chances that way would have been much bigger.

 

It would be actually LotR to be the first trilogy with all entries grossing more than a billion, 

LotR might also in 3D too. 

The trilogy will earn more than $3.5b.

[Newbie]

Domestically, Phantom Menace (16 years gap) and Indiana Jones 4 (19 years) dropped between 5% and 10% in admissions since last installment (both franchises equally loved as LOTR). Even if we had applied a 10% to the lower attended (FOTR), TH should have got about 50 million admissions, enough to reach 400 million.In Japan, there have recently been many examples of big franchises growing since LOTR time (2001-2003): POTC, Mission Impossible, HP, MIB... For some reason, TH has not had the same appealing.In order to say this could reach 1 billion OS (or at least TA/DH2 numbers), it did not need to grow in 2003 developed markets, but growing in some markets where was much lower 10 years ago: Australia (because of exchange rate. Today is about 40% higher), big expanding markets (China, Russia, Brazil, Mexico). In these 5 markets it has grown 90 million since ROTK. I expected, at least, double of that. In China, just some months ago, even no-fans were expecting in China's forum about 80-90 million for this. Release date (piracy because excesive delay and being released after New Year's Holiday, when people has no money) has killed its posibilities. We will see if this changes for next two movies.Asuming that it would drop in admissions (I had calculated about 35-40%) to stay flat in dollars in developed markets, and the incredible crash in Japan, you already have 850-900.Of course, this is boxoffice-fiction given we already have final numbers, and you were right and me wrong, but I do not think it was so crazy to think about those numbers.

PeludoYou compare final entry versus years later new additions, but fishnet was talking how bad it was that the Hobbit couldn't beat Fellowships adjusted. For that comparison whats the attendance difference between the adjusted Star Wars and Phantom Menace, and Raiders of the Lost arc versus Indy IV, I think in both cases the drop is far, far larger (but I easily could be wrong), certainly for Indy, and still considerably larger for Wars to Menace (factor out the rerelease, which was far larger then the rerelease on Indy).And really I think its odd that people would compare direct sequels to (Pirates, HP, ect) when so little of the elements of the original film is what is part of the newer film. At least with Reboots you get a considerable amount of new actors that can change how people react to the film. I mean I wouldn't expect a story about Dumbledore youth to do anywhere near the range of the end of the harry Potter Saga, and Imagine Pirates doing a sequel years later without its primary star, say with Orlando headlining it, with five or so small characters who were typically in only say five or ten minutes of the earlier films. I don't think anyone would expect that movie to take off.Star Wars Prequel is a pretty close comparison as it primaryly features minor (screen time wise) players from the previous films (Vader, Obiwan, C3po, R2) with the rest being new characters from the original films.I mean Gandalf (big name character), but absent through huge big sections of Fellowship, is a rather small character in Two Towers, and a important yet still fairly small part of Return of the King, is the primary returning character.I don't think any of the franchise's mentions in your second part when talking about Japan, would have held up anywhere near how they did by not having the primary stars continue as the stars of the sequels. Edited March 10, 2013 by Newbie

[Rudolf]

I mean I wouldn't expect a story about Dumbledore youth to do anywhere near the range of the end of the harry Potter Saga ..

Imagine J.K.Rowlings decides to write prequels: Dumbledore's fight against Grindelwald and James Potter against Snape. First the books would go gangbusters and then the movies would fill again cinemas. Perhaps not DH2 numbers, but still not "anywhere near the range".

[Newbie]

Rudolf  There is a big difference between the various Potter films of the last 4 years.  I didn't mean to imply that none would watch, just that it wasn't going to equal the the best of the series.  I don't even know if it would match the worst of the series.

 

Still would be successful, but that still leaves a lot of room in-between.  As fads, go give it ten years, interest might pick up for a new book release (obviously something that doesn't apply to the Hobbit which was older release then LoTR), and it could also have significant migration of people who have moved away from that universe.

[peludo]

How much has TH1 decreased in admissions from RoTK?

 

40%?

More. According BOM list, ROTK sold 61 million and TH, 37. These numbers would imply 40% as you well say, but that list make a mere division between gross and average ticket price. TH has had 3D and IMAX boost, so its tickets are more expensive than average. The same can be applied to other recent blockbusters like Avatar, Avengers or both TDK. That list is a quite good reference, but it is a bit distorted.

[peludo]

PeludoYou compare final entry versus years later new additions, but fishnet was talking how bad it was that the Hobbit couldn't beat Fellowships adjusted. For that comparison whats the attendance difference between the adjusted Star Wars and Phantom Menace, and Raiders of the Lost arc versus Indy IV, I think in both cases the drop is far, far larger (but I easily could be wrong), certainly for Indy, and still considerably larger for Wars to Menace (factor out the rerelease, which was far larger then the rerelease on Indy).And really I think its odd that people would compare direct sequels to (Pirates, HP, ect) when so little of the elements of the original film is what is part of the newer film. At least with Reboots you get a considerable amount of new actors that can change how people react to the film. I mean I wouldn't expect a story about Dumbledore youth to do anywhere near the range of the end of the harry Potter Saga, and Imagine Pirates doing a sequel years later without its primary star, say with Orlando headlining it, with five or so small characters who were typically in only say five or ten minutes of the earlier films. I don't think anyone would expect that movie to take off.Star Wars Prequel is a pretty close comparison as it primaryly features minor (screen time wise) players from the previous films (Vader, Obiwan, C3po, R2) with the rest being new characters from the original films.I mean Gandalf (big name character), but absent through huge big sections of Fellowship, is a rather small character in Two Towers, and a important yet still fairly small part of Return of the King, is the primary returning character.I don't think any of the franchise's mentions in your second part when talking about Japan, would have held up anywhere near how they did by not having the primary stars continue as the stars of the sequels.

You are making great analysis and you are even convincing me in some parts . Maybe I have bundled comparing LOTR with SW or IJ, given the trajectories were opposed and both SW and IJ dropped in admissions movie afte movie, meanwhile LOTR grew up.

 

With characters issue, I do not see so much difference, but maybe SW did it better. You mention Vader, Obi-Wan, C3PO and R2. Gandalf replaces Obi-Wan and Gollum replaces both C3PO and R2. But maybe the biggest fail for general audiences of first TH movie is that it has not introduced strongly enough the feeling that there are two enormous villains. We know there is a very evil dragon thanks to introduction and the final (great) scene, but I have the feeling its presence is diluted along the movie. And, in the other side, we already knew in Phantom Menace that little child would became Darth Vader, but I think GA are not very conscious that

Necromancer is Sauron.

Necromancer, what it must be the real link with LOTR plot, has very low relevance in the first movie. I guess it will be better explained in next two movies, so there can be a big growth thanks to this topic. But, IMHO, they will need very good trailers and marketing campaign to attract GA.

Edited March 10, 2013 by peludo

[tupek]

More. According BOM list, ROTK sold 61 million and TH, 37. These numbers would imply 40% as you well say, but that list make a mere division between gross and average ticket price. TH has had 3D and IMAX boost, so its tickets are more expensive than average. The same can be applied to other recent blockbusters like Avatar, Avengers or both TDK. That list is a quite good reference, but it is a bit distorted.

The Hobbit didn't sell 37 m. tickets. It sold less.

[Elessar]

That's what he said.

[peludo]

The Hobbit didn't sell 37 m. tickets. It sold less.

That is exactly what I am saying

[peludo]

Who knows that actually after 2014, Hobbits will be the first trilogy with all entries grossing more than a billion?

= NEW RECORD = Hahaha~

And what about the chance of being the larger franchise with every movie over 300 million in US (6 movies)?. Adjusting for inflation, Star Wars is obviuosly quite bigger than LOTR in US, but The Empire Strikes Back (still) did not get 300 million. I have doubts with Desolation of Smaug, but the chance to get it exists.

[Plain Old Tele]

And what about the chance of being the larger franchise with every movie over 300 million in US (6 movies)?. Adjusting for inflation, Star Wars is obviuosly quite bigger than LOTR in US, but The Empire Strikes Back (still) did not get 300 million.

Neither did ROTJ, until the '97 re-release.

[John Marston]

 $708,100,000  

[Elessar]

Will do like $5m more before it finishes me thinks.

[Newbie]

The one thing I am really disappointed with Box Office wise is that it wont beat the awful ALice (God how I hated that movie).

 

In the US was the film ever released to dollar theaters?

[Newbie]

Peludo

 

Another way that makes it really difficult to compare LotR verses others is that its literally one movie, one story, just released in three parts.  You knew after each one, roughly the quality of acting, directing and script that would be in each movie, and each release just feed into each other.

 

Now that isn't the case with other sequels to date, as the story is all conceived later (Heck even Potter wasn't finished when it started the movies), you usually have different writers, different directors, and in many cases huge changes behind the scenes in other parts of the film making process of which can impact the finished look and quality of a film.  To my knowledge the only major change in the LotR films is that each film had a different editor.  And thats about it.

[Newbie]

Peludo

 

Seriously though, does anyone know the change in admissions between Star Wars and Phantom Menace, and Raiders and Indy IV, I am actually really curious and besides Trek, I never followed the movies of the 70 and 80's in great detail.

[Gazz]

Can I just jump in to say that these kind of discussions are the reasons I read this forum. Good points on either side and a solid amount of information being passed back and forth without the bitter after taste of angry insults. This is more like it! 

[peludo]

Peludo

 

Seriously though, does anyone know the change in admissions between Star Wars and Phantom Menace, and Raiders and Indy IV, I am actually really curious and besides Trek, I never followed the movies of the 70 and 80's in great detail.

 

According to BOM, Star Wars has sold adding every release 178 million admissions. Phantom Menace 90 million (it can be lower because 3D gross)

 

Raiders, 88 million and IJ4, 44 million

 

Both cases about 50% drop in admissions. Curious

 

If you want to see the top 200 of all time, you have the list here:

 

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm?adjust_yr=1&p=.htm

[peludo]

Can I just jump in to say that these kind of discussions are the reasons I read this forum. Good points on either side and a solid amount of information being passed back and forth without the bitter after taste of angry insults. This is more like it! 

 

Sometimes I reject to read some threads because of absurd and unnecessary offensive posts.

[Newbie]

Thanks for the info, and Can I just say I utterly agree.  I have no issue with people having different opinions (hello we each have one), but I have never understood the rancor that some fans have towards others, and other's opinions.  Obviously with some reservations, I do have issues with people having views that I just can't even fathom.  But I still try not to treat to those with anything besides being calm and rational.

 

I almost always stayed away from the Hobbit thread, because I just couldn't understand some of the views being expressed.