Weekend Estimates Hobbit 36.7 pg 33

[4815162342]

That's a good point. I consider GoT a superior product to anything in the Jackson oeuvre, but I prefer "low" fantasy to "high" fantasy. Some people feel differently.

I prefer A Song of Ice and Fire to LOTR/The Hobbit as well in terms of narrative depth/complexity/characters/etc, but I still enjoy the hell out of Tolkien's books and the adaptations so far.

[Dementeleus]

I'm the reverse -- I like GOT (though I'm sick of him continually branching the storyline out and adding more characters constantly), but I prefer Tolkien more. Cleaner and more concise (!).

[4815162342]

I think Tolkien's best work is really the Silmarillion, when you view it as a series of history/mythology summaries rather than a true book. The most complex characters he created come from there (Feanor, Hurin and Turin, etc).

[Fake]

So TH1 went up a bit..... good.

[Dementeleus]

I think Tolkien's best work is really the Silmarillion, when you view it as a series of history/mythology summaries rather than a true book. The most complex characters he created come from there (Feanor, Hurin and Turin, etc).

I find the Silmarillion to be mostly a slog, basically because it's mostly just history/mythology summaries. I want to read a story, not a pseudo-history (although it's interesting stuff if you like Middle-Earth). There are plenty of good tales in there, if he had ever taken the time to write them.

[4815162342]

Did you read The Children of Hurin?

[Dementeleus]

Did you read The Children of Hurin?

As soon as I wrote that post, I remembered that exception. (No, I haven't yet.)

[baumer]

So TH1 went up a bit..... good.

Still an estimate.

[4815162342]

As soon as I wrote that post, I remembered that exception. (No, I haven't yet.)

Chris Tolkien certainly isn't the writer his father was but I think he did a good job at compiling all the notes, chapters, and other materials his father put down and expanding on the tale of Hurin, Turin, etc to a feature-length novel. Obviously it would have been even better if Tolkien had managed to finish it himself but I enjoyed it.

[Lordmandeep]

Watched TH part 1...Not as epic as LOTR but a solid adventure fantasy still...

[IndustriousAngel]

I'm the reverse -- I like GOT (though I'm sick of him continually branching the storyline out and adding more characters constantly), but I prefer Tolkien more. Cleaner and more concise (!).

Actually these are two completely different kinds of fantasy. GoT is "modern" writing, with believable characters, understandable emotions and motivations and so on - it's just set in a kind of medieval setting plus some fantastic elements, otherwise it could as well be historic fiction. Tolkien on the other hand is far from modern; the stories and especially the philosophy have more in common with greek or norse myths and sagas - the protagonists in LotR don't act as people usually do. Maybe the best piece on what's special about Tolkien is from one of my favourite writers, Gene Wolfe: "The best introduction to Mountains". If you don't know Gene Wolfe yet, you should get to know him. Maybe the most clever writer working today.

[Dementeleus]

I know Gene Wolfe -- never been able to get into him, though. In fact, I'm really not much of a fantasy guy, aside from LOTR (though I've read a few things; the Belgariad, the Steven Lawhead "Arthur" series). And I'm sticking through "Song of Ice and Fire" to the bitter end, although sometimes it feels more like a chore than entertainment.

[fishstick]

The interesting thing about 2007 and IAL dropping 57% is that it did so because it was up against National treausre 2, which made 44 mill in it's first weekend. The Hobbit was up against nothing substantial and still fell 57%.http://www.boxoffice....com/122407.htm

I'm not forgetting that at all. Even taking out the midnights it fell 50%. And again, without a juggernaut to open against it.

That`s why I`m hoping that studios will become aware of this, that TH:AUJ was so weak it fell hard without a real competition, and that they won`t be affraid to release a serious one against DoS. I want that movie and TABA to be hammered. LOTR got away without competition but it wa sin a stronger position overall due to media fawning over. OTOH, does anyone see TH people in media anymore? LOTR fucks were contantly everywhere but I guess that`s because it`s easier to market 20somethings and a teenager (Wood) to teens than 40somethings and older. LOTR actors - 4 Hobbits, Bloom and Tyler - were constantly in the press and on TV. I`m not seeing Freeman, Armitage,etc. The movies are skewing older cause the cast is older overall. There are no teens (characters and/or actors) and no 20somethings who are closer to teens than actors in their 30s and 40s and above.

[Halba]

the next 2 probably wont do as bad as part 1 but still we know not to expect significantly over 1b ww for any of these movies. i think 2.8bn ww for all 3 is the most wb can expect. 1st one cost 400m according to one source, so its gonna be around 1.5bn for all 3. it doesnt look profitable as ww only 45% they get.lotr is just epic, its the best fantasy trilogy ever made, heck its probably just above star wars for best trilogy ever. hobbit is nowhere near this level.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Halba

[Dementeleus]

The first one didn't cost $400m, unless you're including P&A.

[fishstick]

I think that PJ and WB have a lot of hope that inclusion of Borelando and Evangeline Lilly in next 2 movies will raise the boxoffice. Well guess what? New generation has their own idols who are new generation`s age. So if they think they can market a 36 years old married father and 34 years old married mother to teens whose idols are teens themselves or in early 20s they should think again. LOTR had young actors among its main cast. TH doesn`t. Also, very young actors and actresses are now big stars due to YA franchises so their fans won`t flip for much older substitutes in smaller roles who are shoe-horned in the movies to attract a bit of YA audience.

[Elessar]

the next 2 probably wont do as bad as part 1 but still we know not to expect significantly over 1b ww for any of these movies. i think 2.8bn ww for all 3 is the most wb can expect. 1st one cost 400m according to one source, so its gonna be around 1.5bn for all 3. it doesnt look profitable as ww only 45% they get.lotr is just epic, its the best fantasy trilogy ever made, heck its probably just above star wars for best trilogy ever. hobbit is nowhere near this level.

Get your facts straight. Costs for all three movie plus marketing should not exceed $1b. They will make more than enough profit on these movies.

[kowhite]

Get your facts straight. Costs for all three movie plus marketing should not exceed $1b. They will make more than enough profit on these movies.

If the production costs on these movies are $600M, than total costs including P&A will almost assuredly exceed $1B. At minimum, they will be $1.05B, more probably they will be $1.2B.It's kind of silly though, to tell people to get their facts straight, when it's almost assured that none of you have the facts. Edited December 24, 2012 by kowhite

[John Marston]

Have a hard time believing these films will be money losers

[kowhite]

Have a hard time believing these films will be money losers

Well, they won't be...not even close, unless the sequels take some serious nosedives in performance versus this first one. Probably why you're having a hard time with it since it's just not really realistic based on what the film is doing right now. Edited December 24, 2012 by kowhite