COMPASS & LOTR comparison

[Gwathagor]

Absolutely! It made me wonder if the original Telmar-guys were pirates of Spanish or Portuguese descent.

[Lalaith]

That's really interesting about the different marketing tactics. It was definitely marketed at children, here in Europe...lots of emphasis on the big polar bear and so on.
As for suitable ages for Pullman...I think seven/eight is a bit young, particularly for independent reading.
Not because it's too scary, but because Pullman is quite dense and literary in style - it's much heavier going than the Hobbit. I'd put it on a par with Lord of the Rings, at least.

[Lush]

I don't know of any serious Tolkien student who even takes the movies seriously

I knew a Duke lecturer who took them very seriously. Yes, she specialized in Tolkien.

As for "Compass" - didn't like it. They took a brilliant opportunity to introduce a really cool female hero and wasted it with horrible editing (especially toward the end). I tend to overlook a lot of flaws in movies like that, but it didn't strike me as a movie with soul, a vibrant core.

Though it was hilarious how in one scene they steered clear of outright insulting the Catholic Church by insulting the Orthodox Church instead (the icons used in one scene were obviously Orthodox). Great PR move! Then again, I've always meant to ask Pullman as to why he had that weird scene in HDM with the (surprise!) vodka-slugging, smelly, terrible, irredeemable Slavs.

[davem]

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/ent...p-ten-gro.html

More evidence that fantasy movies don't play well in the US - Prince Caspian underperformed in America but was in the global top ten. Based on its 'domestic' performance Disney have pulled out of their option of co-producing Voyage of the Dawn Treader. VoDT may get picked up based on its global box office (but maybe not with the same budget).

Can't think of any recent fantasy movies which have shaken up the US B.O. - actually not since The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe. And if a sequel to such a major performer can underperform so badly that Disney jump ship mid franchise it might mean that Warner's will start looking a bit more closely at TH.

Maybe fantasy movies have had their day & the studios will start looking around for the next big thing - & I can't help feeling that these new productions would have excited Tolkien far more than a Hobbit movie http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...n-1206529.html

[Mister Underhill]

I'm still not buying this theory that it's the US in particular that has somehow become fantasy averse. Caspian was #13 in the yearly domestic box office; its decline in domestic B.O. compared to LtWatW (criminy, that's a clunky acronym) was roughly equivalent to the decline in international B.O. I haven't seen poor domestic box office cited in the stories I read so much as poor overall box office. Caspian didn't even match Compass internationally.

There are still fantasy projects being developed. I can think of two big script sales within the past six months or so -- Galahad and Round Table -- and there are projects like Clash of the Titans and a Dragonheart sequel that are moving down the tracks. They're still trying to reboot Conan, and I've seen a pilot script for a cable series version of George R.R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series. I think what's feeling the squeeze are these megabudget tentpole fantasy films.

This is an old Hollywood routine. Any time a genre picture goes mainstream and breaks the bank, all the other studios try to get in on the act. After Star Wars, everybody wanted their own big budget sci-fi franchise. Then when stuff like Dune tanked rather spectacularly, the studios got cold feet. Unforgiven briefly revived the western. The one-two punch of Braveheart and Gladiator made the big-budget historical epic viable for a good while. The comic-book superhero trend that's been dominating the decade has been showing some wear and tear, but The Dark Knight alone will probably keep it going for a while longer yet.

When LotR and Harry Potter blew up the box office, the studios optioned every fantasy series in sight. Now that some of those are turning out to be bum investments, they're backing off, especially in this economy. The moment Harry Potter stops making money, WB will pull the plug, though that doesn't look like it'll happen anytime soon and they're almost done, aren't they?

On the other hand, I do agree that The Hobbit, especially in the planned two-part form, may feel some squeeze. I'd say that the fact that Jackson and Spielberg couldn't secure a green light for Tintin is a bellwether for how risk-averse the studios are right now. It'll be interesting to see how things play out.

[Gwathagor]

Wow! 3 1066 movies! That's great! I'm disappointed that they beat me to it, but William Nicholson is terrific.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

Wow! 3 1066 movies! That's great! I'm disappointed that they beat me to it

I have to agree with you here.

This is quite interesting, I wonder what genre is up next?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

There are still fantasy projects being developed. I can think of two big script sales within the past six months or so -- Galahad and Round Table -- and there are projects like Clash of the Titans and a Dragonheart sequel that are moving down the tracks. They're still trying to reboot Conan, and I've seen a pilot script for a cable series version of George R.R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series. I think what's feeling the squeeze are these megabudget tentpole fantasy films.

And Terry Brooks 'Elfstones of Shannara', too..... Howsumever...it will be interesting to see how many of them hit the screen. Looking at performance, though, it does look like, ATM, fantasy plays better outside the US.

The moment Harry Potter stops making money, WB will pull the plug, though that doesn't look like it'll happen anytime soon and they're almost done, aren't they?

3 more movies - Half-blood Prince due out next summer (pushed back from last November, btw) & a two part adaptation of the final book, Deathly Hallows. And that's the intereesting thing as regards TH - DH is scheduled for release in Dec 2010 & summer 2011. Now, if Warners decide that its better to release DH part 2 at Christmas 2011, then TH will be put back most probably till Christmas 2012 - 'cos they ain't gonna put their two biggest movies up against each other.

On the other hand, I do agree that The Hobbit, especially in the planned two-part form, may feel some squeeze. I'd say that the fact that Jackson and Spielberg couldn't secure a green light for Tintin is a bellwether for how risk-averse the studios are right now. It'll be interesting to see how things play out.

Shooting two movies back to back (TH & sequel) can be cost effective - but only if you know both movies will be hits. But will TH be the hit everybody's assuming? No Aragorn/Arwen love story, no Legolas... No- a Hobbit, an old Wizard & a dozen Dwarves. Yes, there's Rivendell, but we've seen it already, a battle under the Misty Mountains, but we've seen it already.. TH may easily disappoint the movie fans. Caspian has shown that going for a more 'adult' take on a children's story doesn't necessarily work out (though I have to say, while I enjoyed PC, it was difficult to take the idea of children being involved in killing to such a degree - & apparently not even being slightly fazed by it. Mind you, that's in the books, so I'm not blaming the film-makers entirely)

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

The comic-book superhero trend that's been dominating the decade has been showing some wear and tear, but The Dark Knight alone will probably keep it going for a while longer yet.

And The Watchmen too.

Maybe studios will turn to 'feel good' cheese-fests like Mamma Mia as the recession bites? And more and more apocalyptic misery as 2012 approaches and film makers try to milk all that rubbish.

Originally Posted by davem

Shooting two movies back to back (TH & sequel) can be cost effective - but only if you know both movies will be hits. But will TH be the hit everybody's assuming? No Aragorn/Arwen love story, no Legolas... No- a Hobbit, an old Wizard & a dozen Dwarves.

Who's to say they won't shoehorn them in? It means more of these: $$$$.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Who's to say they won't shoehorn them in? It means more of these: $$$$.

They probably will - I've long suspected that most of the movie fans who have been demanding a TH movie know little & care less about Tolkien's book: they want another movie with all their favourite characters in it. I further suspect that that's exactly what Warners will expect to find on their hands come 2011/12.