kowhite Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 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.Yup, usually separate. My suggestion for anyone trying to figure out P&A...if it's a tentpole worldwide release, expect somewhere between $150-$200M on top of the budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishstick Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 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.Each to its own. I consider him the safest, most boring director around who took TH gig to save his face after TLB`s undeniable floppage on every level and KK`s iffy success (considering it`s now the reference and synonim for bloat). I call him Count Bloatula but that earned me a warning so I`m putting it in spoiler tags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowhite 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.I mean, I get FOTR but WHY Twilight? Complain about issues in The Hobbit, but those Twilight movies are awful in about every way imaginable. Ah! They make the The Phantom Menace look like a good movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impact Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Well I'm seeing Lincoln tomorrow-probably will be the last film I see this year. Unless if I see something else also later on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MovieMan89 Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 (edited) 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?I couldn't agree more with you on that being the big problem for the Star Wars prequels. We all knew the essentials of what happened before the OT, so there was nothing really worth telling. They had to stretch it. I guess I consider The Hobbit more of its own separate story though, rather than being an essential piece for understanding LOTR, and that's how I look at it. They played the SW prequels out as being essential pieces to the story of the OT, when they simply weren't. I don't view that as the purpose of this trilogy. It's just meant to be the story of Bilbo's adventure, not essential to understanding LOTR. Edited December 23, 2012 by HobbitMan89 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MovieMan89 Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Wait, you liked FOTR? She loves FOTR. Shitto is where it all went wrong for her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 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.Do we have anything close to a concrete example of marketing costing $250m, for a single movie? The biggest figure I've ever heard was for some of the HPs, and that was $150m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishstick Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Wait, you liked FOTR? I adore FOTR. Linear narrative PJ excels at, real emotion, no Oscar hubris yet, just pure desire to make a really good movie and NO FUCKIN UGLY STUPID SHRIEKING BITCH SHITTO YEE-HAAAA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowhite Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Each to its own. I consider him the safest, most boring director around who took TH gig to save his face after TLB`s undeniable floppage on every level and KK`s iffy success (considering it`s now the reference and synonim for bloat). I call him Count Bloatula but that earned me a warning so I`m putting it in spoiler tags. You got a warning for that? Meh.Personally I love his middle earth stuff...so much so, I'd be happy if he did nothing for the rest of his career but make middle earth movies. That's probably helped by me thinking Lovely Bones was kinda eh, and King Kong was deeply flawed. But man I love his middle earth stuff.You're probably right it was a safe choice to go back to this...but hey, what can I say, I'm glad he's doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MovieMan89 Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 I adore FOTR. Linear narrative PJ excels at, real emotion, no Oscar hubris yet, just pure desire to make a really good movie and NO FUCKIN UGLY STUPID SHRIEKING BITCH SHITTO YEE-HAAAA! I'm pretty sure PJ's oscar intentions were the exact same with all 3. Especially since all 3 were filmed at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowhite Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Do we have anything close to a concrete example of marketing costing $250m, for a single movie? The biggest figure I've ever heard was for some of the HPs, and that was $150m.I have never seen that, but I've seen $200M. Keep in mind, "marketing" costs usually means all distribution costs, which includes additional costs beyond just advertising, prints usually being the biggest one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riczhang Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Do we have anything close to a concrete example of marketing costing $250m, for a single movie? The biggest figure I've ever heard was for some of the HPs, and that was $150m.I vaguely remember people talking about $250 million dollars for a movie somewhere, but 150-200 million seems about the norm for a huge tentpole these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riczhang Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 I have never seen that, but I've seen $200M. Keep in mind, "marketing" costs usually means all distribution costs, which includes additional costs beyond just advertising, prints usually being the biggest one.Just a question, with the switch to digital have print costs gone down dramatically, or just a little? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowhite Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Just a question, with the switch to digital have print costs gone down dramatically, or just a little?I've never really looked at the trending, but it's an interesting question. My gut says yes, but I've never really paid enough attention to it to really be able to say with any certainty. Prints are still million and millions of dollars though, so clearly it's not dumping it down that low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishstick Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 I couldn't agree more with you on that being the big problem for the Star Wars prequels. We all knew the essentials of what happened before the OT, so there was nothing really worth telling. They had to stretch it. I guess I consider The Hobbit more of its own separate story though, rather than being an essential piece for understanding LOTR, and that's how I look at it. They played the SW prequels out as being essential pieces to the story of the OT, when they simply weren't. I don't view that as the purpose of this trilogy. It's just meant to be the story of Bilbo's adventure, not essential to understanding LOTR.Yeah, TH is just that big Bilbo adventure that isn`t essential for understanding LOTR. Unfortunately, that isn`t how this new trilogy is made. They kept the brand name but shoe-horned stuff that supposedly helps understand already easily understandable LOTR. My beef here is that TH and Appendices stuff simply doesn`t add up as LOTR prequel because many key characters and races play absolutely no role in LOTR nor are ever mentioned (dwarves save Gimli, Mirkwood Elves save Legolas, Men of Dale) while Bilbo is dispatched from FOTR quickly is basically just passing the torch to Frodo. It`s really a separate story very loosely connected and attempts to make it more connected just feel like a rehash of what we have seen in LOTR. Necromancer will be banished from Mirkwood big fuckin deal. There will be a battle with orcs, been there done that. Even the dragon is physiclaly similar to fell beats except that he beaths fire and talks. So not much there to warrant 3 movies about what came before main events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishstick Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 I'm pretty sure PJ's oscar intentions were the exact same with all 3. Especially since all 3 were filmed at the same time.Nope. I don`t think that they expected Oscar attention in major categories for FOTR. It was after FOTR success with AMPAS that hubris kicked in and they started to reshoot scenes from other two movies to make them more Oscary, such as Sam`s TTT speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowhite Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Yeah, TH is just that big Bilbo adventure that isn`t essential for understanding LOTR. Unfortunately, that isn`t how this new trilogy is made. They kept the brand name but shoe-horned stuff that supposedly helps understand already easily understandable LOTR. My beef here is that TH and Appendices stuff simply doesn`t add up as LOTR prequel because many key characters and races play absolutely no role in LOTR nor are ever mentioned (dwarves save Gimli, Mirkwood Elves save Legolas, Men of Dale) while Bilbo is dispatched from FOTR quickly is basically just passing the torch to Frodo. It`s really a separate story very loosely connected and attempts to make it more connected just feel like a rehash of what we have seen in LOTR. Necromancer will be banished from Mirkwood big fuckin deal. There will be a battle with orcs, been there done that. Even the dragon is physiclaly similar to fell beats except that he beaths fire and talks. So not much there to warrant 3 movies about what came before main events.It's funny, take out your negative adjectives and I'm like...f'ing yeah I love that there's going to be nine hours of movies covering this.I do get the feeling that's part of hte issue though...bottom line, there are just less people invested in seeing this material in such detail, as there were for Lord of the Rings.But I'm also a guy that would've totally taken LOTR being even longer. Heck I'd totally love Tom Bombadil stuck back into FOTR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
druv10 Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 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. We have history in the making. fishnets referred to ROTK by it's proper name. My eyes must be deceiving me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommycruise Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 So if Jack reacher only made 5.1m on friday does that mean we are only looking at weekend of 16m? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
druv10 Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 She loves FOTR. Shitto is where it all went wrong for her. Well, we've no Otto in TH1 so why hate it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
