COMPASS & LOTR comparison

[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.

[Sauron the White]

from Thinlomien

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?

Perhaps as a warrior, he was attempting to learn a new skill which could he employ in his repertoire? Remember in the first film we saw Boromir giving lessons in sword play to Merry and Pippin, so learning new techniques found a place on the menu. Again, this all sounds like so much nitpicking to find something wrong with the films when the vast majority of ticket buyers simply sat there, enjoyed the film and did not puzzle about such arcane questions. Out of the 185 million people who purchased tickets to TTT, how many actually sat there and had reservations about the incongruity about putting a Dwarf on a horse in the first place?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Out of the 185 million people who purchased tickets to TTT, how many actually sat there and had reservations about the incongruity about putting a Dwarf on a horse in the first place?

I can't speak for the 185 million but I can say that the five who sat in the row in front of me certainly appeared to have bought their tickets simply so they could laugh at/ridicule the entire concept of heroic fantasy and noble course of action.

Same thing happened when I went to see RotK in matinee--beastly bunch of teenage girls kept up a whispering campaign. Most rude and disconcerting. It's too bad that most cinemas nowadays don't have ushers around to keep the silence.

It has really made me wonder if part of the attraction of PJ's movies has been, for a certain subsection of the movie-going public, the opportunity to wallow in derision, scorn and cynicism.