MovieMan89 Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Even if you take out about 30 minutes, I think you'd be hard-pressed to get them through Mirkwood and the Elves in that period of time. I think he started realizing he was looking at a first film well in excess of three hours and that's where the decision to split things up came form.Then don't go quite to the middle and make this a 3 hour film, and the second a 3 and a half ala ROTK. It could have been done in two movies, and I think that would have sat better with a lot of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishstick Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 (edited) Nothing happens in this part of the book, even with additions, in terms of the plot. people run into various menace, fight, get some advise from Elves, run into new menace, fight, keep getting rescued in the last moment without a scratch. That`s nothing in terms of forwarding the story. Edited December 23, 2012 by fishnets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowhite Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 (edited) What`s so ridiculous about TLR costing $250 mio? It`s a double standard if one is hammered because f its budget and another is given a pass.It's not a double standard at all.The Hobbit was as safe a bet of a film to spend $250M+ of a budget on. You're nuts to argue otherwise. It's a sequel to a multi-billion dollar trilogy...the notion it'd make its money back is not a stretch at all. And what do you know, it's not really going to have any problem making its money back, even if its falling short of expectations.The Lone Ranger...well, it's a western. And no western has made money anywhere close to what TLR needs to make to be profitable. Never mind that even if you take The Hobbit's highest reported budget of $270M, The Lone Ranger is STILL a more expensive movie.That's why people balk at one, and not the other. Now, there are other factors with TLR that you can use to justify it...but it should be very obvious why one is a much riskier proposition than the other. Edited December 23, 2012 by kowhite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MovieMan89 Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Nothing happens in this part of the book, even with additions, in terms of the plot. people run into various menace, fight, get some advise from Elves, run into new menace, fight, keep getting rescued in the last moment without a scratch. That`s nothing in terms of forwarding the story.It doesn't sound like you even like the book? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishstick Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 It's not a double standard at all.The Hobbit was as safe a bet of a film to spend $250M+ of a budget on. You're nuts to argue otherwise.I`m not arguing otherwise. It was so safe it was boring. PJ is the safest, most boring director now. That`s why I`m happy that things started off unexpectedly and I hope the end total will be unexpectedly low.The Lone Ranger...well, it's a western. And no western has made money anywhere close to what TLR needs to make to be profitable. Never mind that even if you take The Hobbit's highest reported budget of $270M, The Lone Ranger is STILL a more expensive movie.That`s all true. My point is that neither should have been so expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishstick Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 It doesn't sound like you even like the book?I like the book for what it is but I don`t consider it an essential reading for LOTR fans becasue I don`t think that there`s anything that enriches the LOTR story in there. It also doesn`t explain things better since they are pretty well covered in those books. It`s a nice companion book and certainly flows better when you read it before LOTR but it definitely isn`t essential reading after you read LOTR. Riddles in the Dark and Bilbo and Smaug chat are highlights and everything else is been there done that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olive Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 So where are my Flopbit's Sat numbers? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockNrollaDIM Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 I thought I was the only one who noticed the ballsackface thing.It disturbed me greatly.What about the innocence of all these little girls who went to see the movie and saw a giant ballsack on a face ! :(PJ is a deranged individual.:rofl:Poor things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockNrollaDIM Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 I thought I was the only one who noticed the ballsackface thing.It disturbed me greatly.What about the innocence of all these little girls who went to see the movie and saw a giant ballsack on a face ! :(PJ is a deranged individual.:rofl:Poor things. Can PJ be charged as molester of society? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Then don't go quite to the middle and make this a 3 hour film, and the second a 3 and a half ala ROTK. It could have been done in two movies, and I think that would have sat better with a lot of people.I don't necessarily disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowhite Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 (edited) I`m not arguing otherwise. It was so safe it was boring. PJ is the safest, most boring director now. That`s why I`m happy that things started off unexpectedly and I hope the end total will be unexpectedly low.I find this an odd argument. It would seem to me the safe route for The Hobbit would've been to do what some of you say he should've done...a shorter, less involved movie. And just two of them. Say it's boring all you want, but I dunno why you'd say PJ took the safe route with these movies. The safe route would be doing what you're saying he should've done.But I will add...why did I think you hadn't seen this movie? Edited December 23, 2012 by kowhite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MovieMan89 Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 I like the book for what it is but I don`t consider it an essential reading for LOTR fans becasue I don`t think that there`s anything that enriches the LOTR story in there. It also doesn`t explain things better since they are pretty well covered in those books. It`s a nice companion book and certainly flows better when you read it before LOTR but it definitely isn`t essential reading after you read LOTR. Riddles in the Dark and Bilbo and Smaug chat are highlights and everything else is been there done that.Then I can see why you've never been crazy about this movie from the beginning. Even if PJ wasn't doing it I doubt you would like it much if you're not crazy about the book. I agree with you though that the book does work a lot better if read before LOTR, like I did originally. And that is a definite problem anyone was gonna face making a movie out of it after the LOTR movies. It's just not LOTR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishstick Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 I find this an odd argument. It would seem to me the safe route for The Hobbit would've been to do what some of you say he should've done...a shorter, less involved movie. And just two of them. Say it's boring all you want, but I dunno why you'd say PJ took the safe route with these movies. The safe route would be doing what you're saying he should've done.3 movies is totally safe especially since it looks like each is aping one of LOTR movies. TH is reportedly structured like FOTR (it even has a prologue) albeit less engaging and emotional. DoS is shaping to be like TTT - new characters with their subplots, some battle and TABA to be like ROTK where battle is the centerpiece of the movie. All that was supposed to create the same effect except that they didn`t count on critical hammering and lower interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acetabulum7 Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 I would think they factored in marketing into their budget already; at least that's what every smart business does.The only added marketing cost is if they decided to push more ads than previously budgeted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MovieMan89 Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 OH.MY.GOD. Fishnets just referred to ROTK the movie by its proper name! :mouthdropped:Quick snap a picture of the post for historical records!!!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishstick Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Then I can see why you've never been crazy about this movie from the beginning. Even if PJ wasn't doing it I doubt you would like it much if you're not crazy about the book. I agree with you though that the book does work a lot better if read before LOTR, like I did originally. And that is a definite problem anyone was gonna face making a movie out of it after the LOTR movies. It's just not LOTR.I don`t think the problem is that it isn`t LOTR. It`s just that going sequel to prequel requires of any prequel to have something really essential for the trip backwards. TH and stuff in Appendices that WB has the rights to use ain`t that. OTOH, there`s tons of prequel-worthy Silmarillion shit but they don`t have rights.IMO, The Prequels suffered from the same problem - when you know how the story ends, what came before it should have been extremly interesting and essential and what we ended up getting was some shit about Vader going crazy because he believed Padme would die. And some shit about Storm Troopers being the clone of Boba Fett`s original clone tissue donor. Like, WTF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowhite Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 (edited) 3 movies is totally safe especially since it looks like each is aping one of LOTR movies. TH is reportedly structured like FOTR (it even has a prologue) albeit less engaging and emotional. DoS is shaping to be like TTT - new characters with their subplots, some battle and TABA to be like ROTK where battle is the centerpiece of the movie. All that was supposed to create the same effect except that they didn`t count on critical hammering and lower interest.Yeah, I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one. That it echoes the structure of the prior trilogy isn't enough for me to call this the safest route to making these films.Granted, on some level, simply making these films no matter how you approach it is still kind of a safe bet so it's kind of a pointless argument. But I very much enjoyed what he's done here, so you know, I think you're way off base. I consider this a creative success, so you'll have to excuse me if I cannot agree with a lot of these criticisms. Most of what people say should've been done sound like lesser movies to me. I'm very glad PJ didn't take that advice. Though unlike LOTR, your views on this have a lot more support than any negativity the original trilogy had, so certainly I recognize that view is out there and somewhat prevalent. Edited December 23, 2012 by kowhite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishstick Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 (edited) OH.MY.GOD. Fishnets just referred to ROTK the movie by its proper name! :mouthdropped:Quick snap a picture of the post for historical records!!!! :wub: :wub:You must`ve passed out from your birthday booze because tons of stuff changed around here. i`m no more beat-the-Shriekapoo Camp. I`m now TH Trilogy Under My Precious Masterpiece FOTR. I don`t want FOTR to end up the lowest grossing movie so I`m rooting for TH Trilogy to fall short of FOTR unadjusted and last 3 Twilight movies. Edited December 23, 2012 by fishnets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riczhang Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 I would think they factored in marketing into their budget already; at least that's what every smart business does.The only added marketing cost is if they decided to push more ads than previously budgeted.Doesn't happen in Hollywood. Production, and marketing are kept separate. The figures we most often see are Production only. Marketing can run up another 10-250 million depending on what you're marketing. BO.Com budgets have their best guess for marketing + production, but sometimes they can be a bit sketchy. Hobbit's budget is for example. It doesn't match up with the Production figures that are quoted everywhere else, unless they only spent less than 100 million marketing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riczhang Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 :wub: :wub:You must`ve passed out from your birthday booze because tons of stuff changed around here. i`m no more beat-the-Shriekapoo Camp. I`m now TH Trilogy Under My Precious Masterpiece FOTR. I don`t want FOTR to end up the lowest grossing movie so I`m rooting for TH Trilogy to fall short of FOTR unadjusted and last 3 Twilight movies.Wait, you liked FOTR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
