COMPASS & LOTR comparison

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

From what I hear, Compass will be a modest success, but it's unlikely that New Line will risk $200-300M on a sequel. For one thing, even if the overseas performance is huge -- and it's doing well, up to $187M as of this past weekend -- New Line sold the foreign distribution, so it won't see a big share of the foreign pie.

Yes, but....

It may come down to whether they have anything else beside TH & sequel which is worth doing - I suspect they'll hold on to the rights for SK & AS. Its still possible that TH won't be very good - though it won't lose money however bad it is because it will sell on the strength of LotR, but if it is poor & the sequel is no better, or worse, they could lose out on the whole package. If that happens something like SK, even if it only brings in a modest profit, might be considered worth doing.

Again, I'm not expecting to see any GC sequels to be honest, but a lot of people seem to be assuming that TH & the follow up will be absolutely fantastic movies, make NL a fortune, & are even speculating on more M-e movies beyond them. Its entirely possible these movies will bomb & NL be left feeling grateful they have the other two Pullman options....

[Sauron the White]

I suspect that if the next two Middle-earth movies do less than a combined $US 1.5 billion at the box office, that any future fantasy film would face a very steep uphill climb at New Line. With the exception of the last 3 Star Wars films, the 2 ME films are about as sure thing as you can get in the film business.

Regarding COMPASS sequels, it is worth noting that with the exception of the LOTR films, many sequels see their box office numbers falling as the franchise is milked to the last drop for profits. So if they do the Compass sequels, I would not expect the budget to be quite as generous..... which of course probably makes for a far less spectacular and less marketable movie. Its a downward spiral that feeds on its own lack of success.

[davem]

I'm curious to see TGC, but not desperate - I enjoyed the book but the sequels spoiled it for me. I'm not interested at all in seeing the sequels, so I can speak objectively. NL are about making movies & if they have a property that will bring in even a modest profit - & here we have to focus on the DVD sales even more than the theatrical releases - they won't necessarily just throw it away. Even a limited theatrical release & quick DVD release could prove a worthwhile venture - particularly if they shoot the two sequels back to back.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

It may come down to whether they have anything else beside TH & sequel which is worth doing - I suspect they'll hold on to the rights for SK & AS.

Not NewLine, but Peter Jackson has optioned at least the first book in this new historical fantasy series which won for the author the Campbell award for best new writer at Worldcon 2007: Temeraire, so it's not like there are no other good fantasy works out there.

[davem]

Variety http://www.variety.com/article/VR111...goryid=13&cs=1 reckons TGC will at least make back its production costs (& possibly also its promo budget - depending on which account you believe of how much they spent) so it looks like everything it makes from DVD/TV sales will be clear profit.

The final 2007 frame also saw "The Golden Compass" remain a stellar performer outside the U.S. with $34 million at 7,600 for a stunning $187 million foreign cume. The final international gross for "Compass," handled by a variety of foreign distribs, should eventually hit $250 million -- a stark contrast to the pic's domestic perf, which is currently at about $60 million.

The article continues with the following comment on fantasy movie Stardust:

The "Compass" performance underlines the international traction for fantasy fare: Paramount's summer-fall title "Stardust" salvaged a disappointing domestic run with $96 million overseas. Disney's "Enchanted" took in $20 million during the weekend and has already gone past $111 million overseas midway through its run, passing the Stateside cume.

Don't you Yanks like fantasy or something

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

Yes, but....

It may come down to whether they have anything else beside TH & sequel which is worth doing - I suspect they'll hold on to the rights for SK & AS. Its still possible that TH won't be very good - though it won't lose money however bad it is because it will sell on the strength of LotR, but if it is poor & the sequel is no better, or worse, they could lose out on the whole package. If that happens something like SK, even if it only brings in a modest profit, might be considered worth doing.

Again, I'm not expecting to see any GC sequels to be honest, but a lot of people seem to be assuming that TH & the follow up will be absolutely fantastic movies, make NL a fortune, & are even speculating on more M-e movies beyond them. Its entirely possible these movies will bomb & NL be left feeling grateful they have the other two Pullman options....

The bubble has burst a bit on more Tolkien films. Maybe not to us as fans, but it certainly has to wider film audiences who have never looked at a Tolkien book. Droves went to see Rings and had to find out 'how it ends' but they might not be bothered with a couple more bum-numbing epics about the same old stuff - as they'd see it. Certainly not unless they up the ante and are even more soaked in orc-blood.

The Hobbit itself will do well, but if they do this 'bridge' film I predict it will be a disappointment to the Hollywood accountants - a vast proportion of the audience will go to save themselves the bother of reading the books, so why will they be bothered about something 'made up'? Ordinary Joe isn't in love with Hobbits and Elves like we are

Originally Posted by StW

Regarding COMPASS sequels, it is worth noting that with the exception of the LOTR films, many sequels see their box office numbers falling as the franchise is milked to the last drop for profits. So if they do the Compass sequels, I would not expect the budget to be quite as generous..... which of course probably makes for a far less spectacular and less marketable movie. Its a downward spiral that feeds on its own lack of success.

LotR isn't an exception. The sequels to Spider-Man, Pirates, Bourne, Austin Powers, American Pie, Shrek etc etc.... cleaned up and did better. The secret is in making a sequel that's even more hype, and that's BIGGER and LOUDER. Which is exactly what RotK was. I watched FotR in a screen with just a dozen other people but by the time RotK came along I had to sit in a rubbish seat next to a woman who snored her way through it - punctuated by her husband going "Shhhh, wake up!"

Sequels, if they come along quickly enough, mop up even more numbers as they get in a huge chunk of audience who just want to see what happens and have been varied along with the hype. But if they're left that little bit too long in the making, they can be a disappointment if they fail to live up to 110% of the hype - see Phantom Menace

[Alonna]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

LotR isn't an exception. The sequels to Spider-Man, Pirates, Bourne, Austin Powers, American Pie, Shrek etc etc.... cleaned up and did better. The secret is in making a sequel that's even more hype, and that's BIGGER and LOUDER. Which is exactly what RotK was. I watched FotR in a screen with just a dozen other people but by the time RotK came along I had to sit in a rubbish seat next to a woman who snored her way through it - punctuated by her husband going "Shhhh, wake up!"

The sequel films that you mention that did better than the first films have one big advantage over HDM. They were well received by audiences. The Golden Compass has gotten terrible reviews from critics. When the first film in a series turns out well, the sequel will tend to draw larger crowds. A good example of this is the Pirates franchise. People went out to the see the second one because the first one had been so good. When the second Pirates film was not nearly as good as the first, there was a major drop off in the box office take for the third film, twenty-five percent less. A sequel's box office take can often be correlated with how well audiences liked the one before it. Given that The Golden Compass received such bad reviews, many of the viewers may choose not to return, leading to a significantly lower box office take.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Alonna

The sequel films that you mention that did better than the first films have one big advantage over HDM. They were well received by audiences. The Golden Compass has gotten terrible reviews from critics. When the first film in a series turns out well, the sequel will tend to draw larger crowds. A good example of this is the Pirates franchise. People went out to the see the second one because the first one had been so good. When the second Pirates film was not nearly as good as the first, there was a major drop off in the box office take for the third film, twenty-five percent less. A sequel's box office take can often be correlated with how well audiences liked the one before it. Given that The Golden Compass received such bad reviews, many of the viewers may choose not to return, leading to a significantly lower box office take.

As I remember Pirates had appalling reviews. When I went to see it people were saying "What are you going to see that heap of rubbish for?" Well, a dose of Johnny Depp dressed like Adam Ant and some big ships was enough for me but... And then same people and reviewers had to eat their words.

And GC has not had terrible reviews. They've not all been 'Wow, this is better than Ingmar Bergman" but they've not been bad at all - most I've seen have been no less than 3 stars and most 4 stars?

[Sauron the White]

There is nothing equal to a sure bet in the film industry. But there are some properties which are considered safer bets than others. Lucas did three STAR WARS film and then waited an entire generation to do the next... and people speculated that the magic may not strike again. They were wrong and the SW franchise produced three more mega hits. I would be willing to wager that the next two ME films repeat that pattern. In fact, the chances are even better because
1- more people saw LOTR than the last set of SW films
2- it is a more recent experience than the first three SW films were to the next three in the franchise
3- the LOTR films were generally held in much higher regard by the media and industry and the buzz will be positive on these
4- the film industry is looking for a savior bigtime and nothing looks like as good for that role as a Peter Jackson HOBBIT right now.

from Lalwende

The bubble has burst a bit on more Tolkien films. Maybe not to us as fans, but it certainly has to wider film audiences who have never looked at a Tolkien book.

Outside of the anti-film audience that tends to permeate this site, I have absolutely no idea what you would base a statement like that on. Each LOTR film built bigger than the previous one in both box office and industry recognition. There is nothing you can point to to offer actual evidence for this.

[Lalwendë]

Oh it's correct alright. I haunt other sections of t'internet and droves of people who went to see LotR aren't all that bothered about The Hobbit, if in fact they're bothered at all. Many of these weren't all that bothered about LotR but went to see it anyway - that's marketing for you. People are soon bored. Not us, but them...the other ones...

Star Wars is interesting because if you wanted to follow the story of what happened, going to see the films was the only way to find that out! Of course this doesn't happen with films based on blockbuster books.

[Lalaith]

Did NL really sell all foreign rights to GC?
If so, I bet they're kicking themselves. Its already up to nearly $200m abroad, (ie well in excess of production budget) and that's without Japan.

I still think that a FotR-type length (3 hours plus I think) would have improved the film a lot - the editing felt really excessive. With the amount of over-long films I've sat through (King Kong and Casino Royale both spring to mind - a James Bond flick should never go over 2 hours, its just wrong) here's one that really could have done with a more "epic" feel.

[Sauron the White]

from Lalwende

Star Wars is interesting because if you wanted to follow the story of what happened, going to see the films was the only way to find that out! Of course this doesn't happen with films based on blockbuster books.

The last three movies, which were actually the first three movies in the series, told a story that every single SW fan already knew how it ended. Anakin becomes Darth Vader. Any fan worth his light saber knew that as well as he/she knew their own name -- heck, for some of them they knew that development even better. Nobody had to pay a dime to find that out.

The real question about sequels to GC is this: with two more massive budget Middle-earth movies on their plate over the next few years, does the studio want to compete with itself both in time, energy, and resources for another fantasy which did not track very well in the number one film market in the world?

If GC could be made for under $50 million US, the answer might be yes. But with the same budget it had the first time, I would expect the answer to be no. And a lesser budget is not going to solve the problems that Lalaith mentioned, too short running time and not epic enough. Those things cost even more money then they spent the first time.

[Thinlómien]

While wondering why GC has done so much worse than the LotR movies when it comes to ticket sales, people on this thread seem to ignore two facts. First off, according to some researches, The Lord of the Rings is the second most read book in the world (the most read one being, of course, The Bible). Even though His Dark Materials are widely appreciated and liked as well, how could they ever comepte with LotR? LotR has more fans in general and much more devout fans (like somebody already said). Then, secondly, when it comes to the "general public" that are not fans of either of the books, one must remember that FotR was first of these fantasy blockbusters that have become so popular lately. Now, the general enthusiasm for these fantasy blockbusters is fading (there's been so many of them already) so it is very difficult for any fantasy blockbuster film to reach as big audiences and make as much money as the LotR movies did.

I saw the GC movie a few days ago. It was better than I expected it to be, but still not that good. The actors were mostly very good and it was visually excellent (except for the clumsy-looking bears with too long legs). The storytelling was ok, except that everything was far simpler than in the books and well, they did some things just wrong. Besides, I had a lot of fun while listening to the actors trying to pronounce Serafina Pekkala and her daemon's names (and some of the supposed-to-be Scandinavian names sounded all too funny as well).

Originally Posted by STW

Dwarves were suppose to be rather poor equestrians were they not? How is having one fall off a horse evidence of going too far when an event such as that was probably likely to happen if attempted?

While I wouldn't like to restart this argument, I must say that I agree with davem here. I see your (STW's) point about Dwarves being poor equestrians but why make Gimli ride in the first place, if most of the people are walking. Why on earth would Gimli ride willingly if he could walk as well? That's why the whole falling off the horse episode was so stupid.