A Marvel Fanboy Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 You couldn`t have predicted $1.3 billion for Skyfall because that number had nowhere to come from. What was the most a Bond movie made, $700 mio? And it never even broke $200 mio dom let alone had a shot at $300 mio. So Skyfall boxoffice blew past expectations. True, it had an advantage that nobody expected it to crush SH2, TA or even Avatar, but there was no reason to expect numbers like that in no small measure because Skyfall does not have 3D premium.OTOH, even though rational BOFers disagreed, there was tons of TH predictions going ROTK + 3D + inflation = _______(insert a number that claims to blow past another movie from a rival franchise) and predix going "if _______ could make ______ than TH will make so much more." And lets be honest, when the studio agreed with PJ to split the movies there were many who claimed it showed studio`s confidence in the product. So, yes, expectations on both sides (fanboys and PJ/WB) were sky-high and aren`t met.Pure gold ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sims Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 (edited) 2012 will go down as a year of horrible box office prognosticating. An unusually large number of films either blew past expectations (THG, Skyfall, Ted, The Avengers, Lorax...) or fell way short (The Hobbit, Prometheus, TDKR to a lesser extent). Edited December 24, 2012 by Sims 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddddeeee Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 I love how fishnets' hatred is just spasming out now. It's glorious. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJohn Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 Bring Christmas day. This thread is a complete fishmess and a trainwreck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kayumanggi Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 Not yet Christmas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kayumanggi Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 Monsters, Inc's re-release is definitely doing bad. It's 5-day (in mid-December) could barely match half of the Toy Story double feature from (October) 2009, which also had Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs to contend with and was twice as long. There isn't really a good way to spin that other than "well 3D conversions are not costly" which in all honesty doesn't take away from the fact that it is doing badly. To compare how badly it is doing, Wreck-It Ralph's PTA (for it's 8th weekend) is only 38% off of Monsters which likely has almost nothing but 3D showings, while Ralph is probably mostly 2D at this point. That said the movie made truckloads back in 2001 so why bother saying how much of a failure it's re-release is? Things have changed. Re-release any movie, 2D or 3D, they will mostly disappoint. Americans are saving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Gary Scott Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 The "riddles" were long. Were they really needed?Definitely best part of the movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dashrendar44 Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 (edited) The "riddles" were long. Were they really needed? I thought that was the best part of the movie because it's the less boring part, surprinsingly (I take this over videogamey rumble against CGI ballsack every day). Gollum represented all that was lacking in the rest of the movie: Serkis, as always, brings genuine heart with conflict, consumed by the one ring's power, pityful and yet menacing, conveying many emotions through his sparkling stare, (Loved the childish way he put his chin on the rock playfully asking Bilbo more riddles or the series of expression when he's trying to guess) realistic and not cartoony effects. He was like he truly cares when other were sleepwalking and bland in their roles. Man, that scene when he realized he lost his precious and understood what the riddle was all about, that was the best performance of the movie hands down. It's a delight to watch him emote. A shame, the rest did not live up to that level of acting. Edited December 24, 2012 by dashrendar44 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
telcontar Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 Too true. But, if they absolutely had to make 3 movies there is no justifiable reason they couldn't have been 2 hour movies.3 hours for TH is just too much with scenes drawn out much longer than needed. TH could easily have been 2 hours without losing a single thing of interest or importance.The movie lasts about 2 hours and 35 minutes. Is there a 3 hour version somewhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 The riddle scene is arguably the most famous scene in the book. It's even one of the most famous scenes if you count LOTR and The Silmarillion. It's a total classic, you can't *not* do it. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
75Live Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 (edited) The riddle scene is arguably the most famous scene in the book. It's even one of the most famous scenes if you count LOTR and The Silmarillion. It's a total classic, you can't *not* do it.Well you could "not do it" but why would they do that? Edited December 24, 2012 by 75live Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incarnadine Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 The movie lasts about 2 hours and 35 minutes. Is there a 3 hour version somewhere?My local Cineplex has it listed as 2 hours 50 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 There are 16 minutes of credits. If you bug out when "directed by Peter Jackson" pops up on screen, you've been watching for 2 hrs 34 min. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
telcontar Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 My local Cineplex has it listed as 2 hours 50 minutes.It probably has really long credits. The actual movie is shorter, certainly not close to being 3 hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poseidon Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 With a closer look, "The Hobbits" drop is not that bad. Dropping just 49% without midnights is better than "I am Legends" number, so 300m is still a/the goal for it.Looking at it as a LOTR-Sequel it may look a bit disappointing in the end, but as an adaption of a childrens book with a much weaker story than "Lotr", it's a great success.Maybe it's a good thing overall, it's a success, but at the same time, it's a warning for Hollywood. They need to realize, that the story is the heart of a movie and that even kind of sequels have to present a good one, maybe an even better one.I said it before, "The Hobbit" is like serving vanilla ice creme in a starred restaurant. People still like it, but maybe won't come back for it.For me, "The Hobbit" never had a chance to reach the quality of "The Lord of the Rings", maybe there are more people knowing the books, thinking like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 It's also true that the first third of the book (riddle scene aside) is probably the weakest part. There's a lot to look forward to in the next two parts, even without any additional Necromancer stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Futurist Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 There are 16 minutes of credits. If you bug out when "directed by Peter Jackson" pops up on screen, you've been watching for 2 hrs 34 min.Nope.2h39 of actual movie.10 minutes credits.Total : 2h49.Don't ask me why I am so sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Futurist Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 Does Gollum appear later in the book apart the riddle scene ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 Nope.2h39 of actual movie.10 minutes credits.Total : 2h49.Don't ask me why I am so sure.Why are you so sure? (You're right, and I know exactly why.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 Does Gollum appear later in the book apart the riddle scene ?No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
