COMPASS & LOTR comparison

[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.

[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.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

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

Sure, but what every 501st Legion Star Warrior was dying to know was *how* Anakin bacame Vader. How did a Sith Lord become Emperor? How were Luke and Leia fathered, and how did she become a princess? How did the Republic fall? What was Obi-wan and Anakin's relationship, and what went wrong? For all these answers, they wanted the prequels (although, face it, the meat of the matter was really all in Ep 3).

[William Cloud Hicklin]

StW: the problem is not in establishing that Dwarves aren't equestrians (which book-Gimli simply tells us, in his dour Dwarven way), but in making a cheap pratfall of it for the sake of laffs- PJ self-indulgence which somebody ought to have reined in.

[Sauron the White]

WCH - I do agree that far too often Gimli was used as the butt of a joke or for 6th grade level humor. We agree on that and I would hope that THE HOBBIT - which is filled with dwarves and their history - would refrain from that.

Bethberry - I think we talked about this very issue before and you previously related that sad experience. While I am not a big death penalty advocate, I could be convinced to use it on the spot for cretins who display rude and boorish behavior in public theaters. I sympathize with you there. However, my experience with the three LOTR films was almost the direct and complete opposite of yours. I saw the three films over a total of 30 times, and for opening days the atmosphere was almost reverential. Many people seemed to be waiting a lifetime for the films and acted as ifthey were in a church. Some of the best behaved crowds I have ever seen in my nearly six decades on the planet. As the weeks rolled on, the crowd was no better or no worse than any other film I have seen.

[Sir Kohran]

Compass will certainly make a profit; that's no longer a question. The debate now focuses on whether there will be sequels. I doubt this as, if I remember rightly, the second book is incredibly dull. Very little of interest really happens. Loads of characters and concepts are introduced but the story itself doesn't go very far. There's no epic battles or anything likely to hold the audience's interest. There will have to be some serious adapting to the story if they plan on making anything that will follow on from the Compass films and appeal to people.

As to why it didn't make money in America - I wouldn't put it all down to the religious boycott (though that hardly would have helped). Rather I'd say it was down to a general lack of interest, for whatever reasons.

The Hobbit is almost certain to make a profit. It's pretty much gauranteed, in the same way that Phantom Menace and Dead Man's Chest were both guaranteed to make money - their previous films were very popular with almost everyone. And they did - both made over nine hundred billion dollars. But at the same time they weren't very well received by critics and quite a lot of viewers and their sequels' profits reflect this - Attack of the Clones made almost three hundred million dollars less and At Worlds End, whilst a lot less of an extreme drop, made about one hundred million dollars less. So maybe there is a correlation of sorts between quality and profit.

[Lalaith]

THE HOBBIT - which is filled with dwarves and their history

Oh lord, I hadn't thought of that. PJ's interpretation of the dwarven community....three hours of belching, boasting and dumb-*** humour....*weeps*

the second book is incredibly dull

I thought it was the best of the trilogy. They've also kept the finale of Northern Lights for film two. (If it's made...)

[davem]

From the latest Variety:

"The Golden Compass" remains a paradoxical performer whose B.O. underlines the widespread appeal of fantasy fare outside the U.S. With fifth-frame foreign grosses coming in at $29 million, it did more than 10 times the pic's domestic take of $2.7 million over the frame. (U.S. cume is $65.5 million.)

Combined worldwide take for "Compass," handled internationally by a variety of distribs, is now at $298.5 million, with the foreign take contributing a stunning 78% of that figure. New Line sold off foreign rights to help finance the pic, which carries a reported $180 million pricetag.

Which puts it way into profit before the DVD release. Apparently NL are going to announce whether or not they are going ahead with a sequel later this month.

Oh, & its also up for the Oscar for Visual Effects....

Looks like a sequel isn't out of the question.

[Sauron the White]

New Line sold off foreign rights to help finance the pic, which carries a reported $180 million pricetag.

Am a bit confused at the arcane nature of film financing, distribution and revenues. If New Line did indeed sell off foreign rights a while ago and used that money to help pay the production bills, could someone please explain how a pretty good overseas box office helps them in the light of very poor US revenues which they still own?

Perhaps it would make them optimistic about a future film - at least overseas - but then that would be tempered with the woeful news about the US box office prospects as well.

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Am a bit confused at the arcane nature of film financing, distribution and revenues. If New Line did indeed sell off foreign rights a while ago and used that money to help pay the production bills, could someone please explain how a pretty good overseas box office helps them in the light of very poor US revenues which they still own?

Yeah, I mentioned this upthread, too. Since they sold the foreign distribution, their take of the foreign windfall will be limited.

Film financing, distribution, and revenues are never cut-and-dried. It's not like they sold the foreign distribution for a flat fee and are not seeing any foreign money, for instance. But their profits will be capped and they almost certainly got the losing end of that gamble.

And you can't look at raw numbers, as some have, and simply declare profit. "The film cost $180M and they've taken in almost $300M" just doesn't take into consideration all the complexities. Besides the sale of foreign distribution, there are marketing costs that run into the tens of millions, the box office is shared with theater chains (as mentioned above), and then there are "hidden" costs like gross profit participation -- I expect Nicole Kidman, at least, has gross points.

I still expect that New Line's profits, if any, will be fairly modest. Will that money, plus the attractive foreign prospects for a sequel, be enough to make them take that kind of risk again? Time will tell. New Line's resources are not unlimited, and they're about to sink $300-$400M into Hobbit movies.

If it were, say, Disney, I'd guess they'd probably risk a sequel, because they have the means to exploit the license six ways from Sunday -- theme park rides, animated tie-in series, etc. New Line, historically, hasn't been in the "tentpole" picture business outside of LotR. They usually have a slate that's heavy with low-risk $30-40M pictures like the Rush Hour franchise, Wedding Crashers, horror movies and the like.

I'd say the safe money is still on no sequel, but time will tell.

[Lalaith]

underlines the widespread appeal of fantasy fare outside the U.S.

...implying that the US has gone off fantasy as a whole?
Now that's got to be bad news for the Hobbit....alternatively, NL could be a bit cannier about foreign rights....

[davem]

Anyone know if they sold the Worldwide DVD rights? In theory they could make 4 or 5 (or more) times the theatrical profits via DVD sales. One assumes they haven't sold the foreign distribution rights to any sequels either.

Have to say that given the popularity of TGC worldwide, & the profit its made so far, that if NL can't find some way to produce, & make money on, sequels they must be run by people with the same IQ as those who watch their movies

[Sauron the White]

from davem

Have to say that given the popularity of TGC worldwide, & the profit its made so far, that if NL can't find some way to produce, & make money on, sequels they must be run by people with the same IQ as those who watch their movies

They let you in did they not?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

from davem



They let you in did they not?

I was misinformed.

[Sauron the White]

Ah yes, thought you were going to the opera that night or perhaps a Merchant-Ivory film?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Ah yes, thought you were going to the opera that night or perhaps a Merchant-Ivory film?

I thought I was going to see something of the same intellectual & philosophical depth as the books.

(btw, I was referencing Casablanca with the 'misinformed' comment - Bogie will always be the definitive Frodo in my eyes http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg1ggAywqkU)

[Sauron the White]

from davem

I thought I was going to see something of the same intellectual & philosophical depth as the books.

Well my intellectual friend, it seems that you have been badly misinformed about lots more than just this one film. Some other time, when we both have much more time, allow me to explain how a book is one thing while a film - any film - is quite another. If you expected one medium to give you some of the unique qualities found in the other medium, then you have been misinformed about the nature and limits of the medium. But we can discuss all that.

That 1944 LOTR film was tremendous. Thank you for the link on that one. It was really great and I enjoyed every second of it. Today I paid $8 to see SWEENEY TODD and really needed a good laugh.

I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

[Gwathagor]

Not 'friendship'?

[Sauron the White]

Gwathagor ... thanks for the correction on the CASABLANCA quote. Duly noted and corrected.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

If you expected one medium to give you some of the unique qualities found in the other medium, then you have been misinformed about the nature and limits of the medium.

Then you have an unconscionably low opinion of the capacity of the cinematic medium.

[Lalaith]

Now THAT is a movie (1944 LotR). Peter Lorre as Gollum - so obvious when you think about it....

[Sauron the White]

from WCH

Then you have an unconscionably low opinion of the capacity of the cinematic medium

I do not know exactly what that means. I have a very high opinion of what can be achieved if film. The key word being CAN. I do however believe more or less in Sturgeons Law - 90% of everything is crap.

How is that to be characterized as unconsionably low?

[Bêthberry]

I'm confused by the wording of this thread and the Books thread. Pullman Rips on LotR, others. This thread seems to be devoted to mere film popularity rather than a comparison of the two authors, although it's title suggests that comparison. So, taking a nod from this thread title, I'm posting here, but perhaps Esty might decide this belongs on the Books thread.

Having seen GC, I'm currently rereading HDM.

Northern Lights I still find very intriguing. My fascination lies with Pullman's creation of a world so like ours but existing under a different historical consequence. That for me is what makes the story compelling, not so much the ideology.

I remain just as appalled by Coulter and Asriel on this reading as I was on the first tread. Pullman's depiction of parents is intriguing--at once so very contemporary and yet also so reminiscent of early historical attitudes towards children as familial property. Both perspectives show parents oblivious of emotional responsibility to the child they brought into the world as they pursue their own ambitions and professional pursuits. Coulter and Asriel are both horrible, horrid and dispicable in their abuse of children, whether it's Coulter's kidnapping and experiments or Asriel's murder of Roger. (I have real problems accepting Asriel as a hero after what he does to Roger--how can I glorify a man who would bring down The Authority when he stoops to child murder to pursue his own ambitions? Is killing an innocent child (from a lower class) acceptable as a preamble to going after the big kahuna?)

How to contrast this depiction of parenting with parents in Tolkien's Middle-earth? The only two who come close in their arrogance, pride and conceit are Luthien's father Thingol and Turin's mother Morwen Eledhwen. Their willfulness is in large part responsible for the trials their children undergo but even they are not active child murderers.

Lyra's childhood at Jordan College is presented with Tom Sawyerish idyllic freedoms and a wistful delight in the rough and tumble play and wars of various childhood factions. Then in SK we get a different version of childhood as something akin to a Lord of the Flies viscious mob--children run amok when adults aren't there to supervise them.

Is this the difference between Pullman's view of human nature--something Darwinian--and Tolkien's--something less bestial? Is it evidence of Pullman's playing with alternate universes? Or is it simply an example of the inconsistency of his moral outlook?

[Lalaith]

Really interesting comparisons there, Bethberry, and ones to ponder. I hadn't thought about the parenting thing in Pullman but you are right, it is odd. Then there's Will having to look after his own mother, too.

I will allow myself a brief quibble, though.

The only two who come close in their arrogance, pride and conceit are Luthien's father Thingol and Turin's mother Morwen Eledhwen.

Asriel/Thingol I will accept, but my own interpretation of the characters makes it hard for me to see parallels between Morwen and Coulter. Coulter was sinister and entirely self-seeking, and her eventual mothering instinct is as much of a surprise to her as it is to the reader. Morwen loved her children very much, but these were terrible times and she was purposefully trying to bring them up to be tough and hard, just so they would have some chance of survival. She made mistakes and she had become very bitter, but I don't think she was remotely conceited.

[davem]

And yet I still wonder why TGC has fared so badly at the US box office & done so well everywhere else - face it, if TGC had performed as well in the US as it did across the rest of the world New Line would have a massive hit on their hands & there would be no question of whether or not a sequel would happen. So it could be argued that its US audiences (or lack of them) that has put the franchise at risk (or killed it).

I'm intrigued - is it because there are no American stars (or American accents) in the movie? Is it because, unlike LotR & Narnia, there isn't a large book fan-base ready & waiting? Or is it the 'message' - did the boycott actually work & stop people going to see the movie? Or, & of course one has to ask this, was the movie just bad, or confused?

[Sauron the White]

davem ... as a Yank, perhaps I can offer something in the way of explaination. First of all, Kidman is more or less considered as an American actress despite the reality of the stiuation. So its not the lack of US stars. Pullmans books are simply not any really big deal here. Period.

The Christian right has attempted boycotts of films and other things before with varied degrees of success. I do not think they get any credit for this one.

And I know from previous posts that there is interest in a sequel but I really think that New Line is moving beyond any Pullman films because of the massive investment in the upcoming Middle-earth films both in money as well as energy. New Line has never been a top studio and I really think they cannot juggle more than two very heavy bowling balls at the same time. And they have that with the 2 ME films. And those are more or less sure things.

[davem]

I take your point, but that doesn't explain why the movies have been so popular across the rest of the world - in many places Pullman's work is no better known than in the US - & why there was so little interest in them in America. Many successful movies have been made of books that no-one has heard of.

If they had been as popular in the US as they have been across the rest of the world NL would certainly have gone ahead with sequels alongside the Hobbit movies. Either US audiences decided they weren't interested in yet another fantasy series - which puts a huge question mark over the forthcoming Hobbit films, or there was something about the movies - maybe what audiences heard about Pullman's philosophical position.

Its interesting (to say the least) that in every country but the US TGC has been fantastically successful. Thing is, TGC is not a 'flop' outside the US - just the opposite.

[Lalwendë]

Bethberry - might be worthwhile looking up some of Pullman's recent comments on education as they shed a lot of light on his views of children and childhood. He's very much against all this business of setting targets and denying the chance to exercise the imagination and just 'be children'. I think a lot of this comes into his portrayals of children. In addition I detect a lot of comment on certain attitudes towards children, certainly in British society, which has been judged the worst place to grow up in Europe If you look at Asriel and Mrs Coulter they are very much like the wealthy 'career' parent who does not necessarily have a child's needs and wants at heart - though taken to extremes. They also have echoes of the upper class parents of days gone by who would pack off the kids to boarding school for most of the year.

More than this though, it's the characters of Asriel and Coulter. He is rather like the ultimate Byronic figure, though one with rather more flaws than normal. He is rich, dark, powerful and rebellious. He is Milton's Satan! She is a character Pullman has said he loves to write about as "there is nothing she wouldn't do" and there have been parallels drawn with Margaret Thatcher - her 'metallic' smell (the iron lady), her entourage of adoring men from the Magisterium, her odd unmotherly attitude towards her own child...though of course Mrs Coulter gets some kind of redemption at the end and 'learns'; you cannot say the same of Mrs T at all

There is also something in these two figures who create a child in the throes of (illegal, certainly in their world as she is married) passion when contrasted with Lyra and Will, who fall in love quite innocently and in their innocence, end up doing good for the world and saving it.

I certainly don't think you are supposed to like them.

[Sauron the White]

from davem

Either US audiences decided they weren't interested in yet another fantasy series - which puts a huge question mark over the forthcoming Hobbit films, or there was something about the movies - maybe what audiences heard about Pullman's philosophical position.

You are either attempting to make this more complicated than what it really is or you are working the wheel rather hard to grind a particular axe ... its really simple... the upcoming HOBBIT movie has not even the shadow of a question mark about it. No matter how much you or others may like to see a Jackson Middle-earth movie fail, its as much as a sure bet as any single property to come across the movie screen other than the Star Wars prequels. And I would be willing to bet a decent amount on that if anyone wants to put their money where their prejudices lie.

There was no positive buzz here at all about the GC film. Nobody really knew anything about it in advance... the reviews were mediocre .... the word of mouth was very blah .... and the advertising certainly did not reach out and grab anybody. I really do not think anybody gives a rats behind about Pullman, his philosophical position, the right wing reaction to it, or anything else that rings of an excuse or rationalization.

I also think it came upon the heels of that STARDUST movie which did very mediocre box office as well and people looked at it as just more of the same. Please understand something: nobody here confuses LOTR with the rest of this stuff. The LOTR films were in a special category all of their own. They are not to be packaged, confused, affiliated, or even contaminated by anything else that others may call fantasy. If ten different fantasy movies came and died between now and the debut of the Jackson HOBBIT, it would not impact the box office of that film one single US dollar. Again, I would bet on that.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

f

There was no positive buzz here at all about the GC film. Nobody really knew anything about it in advance... the reviews were mediocre .... the word of mouth was very blah .... and the advertising certainly did not reach out and grab anybody. I really do not think anybody gives a rats behind about Pullman, his philosophical position, the right wing reaction to it, or anything else that rings of an excuse or rationalization.

I also think it came upon the heels of that STARDUST movie which did very mediocre box office as well and people looked at it as just more of the same..

Which about sums up the position in the rest of the world too - where it did fantastic business.

Don't you think its interesting that a film can be so successful everywhere but one country, where it flops miserably - & isn't it valid to ask why? Plus, why did Stardust flop too - that did well outside the US?

[Lalwendë]

I've just read a piece about Elizabeth: The Golden Age on the BBC site. It also did very badly indeed in the US. Apparently there has been a shift in the American film market towards 'light entertainment' and 'family' films away from drama, fantasy and historical fare - the main audience of young men wanting noise and violence however, still remains prime.

I think that's very telling about why films such as LotR and Star Wars do very well in America as opposed to fantasy like Stardust and The Golden Compass - the former are stories about boys/men and are stuffed to the gills with Noise and SFX and belching dwarves and whatnot. The typical audience of youths can just about stomach a few minutes of Frodo being 'gay' or Arwen drifting around wistfully in a frock so long as we quickly get back to Aragorn whacking heads off Orcs. You can at least get on with txting ur m8s when Sam and Frodo are having a snog-up

But seriously...I do think it is the subject matter and how it is presented. The Golden Compass remember, features a girl as its main character, which would turn boys right off from watching the film; hey, she doesn't even make the concession of being dressed in a mini-skirt and bra top! Stardust is too far into the realms of Faerie to be a boys' film, and things like Elizabeth are just far too wordy anyway.

That does not bode well for The Hobbit. They will be forced to go down the belching dwarves and hack 'n' slash action if they want to hook in the youths who make these things profitable and The Hobbit is far too gentle a story to take that. One of the things Jackson realised he had to achieve with Rings was to make it so that the enormous community of book fans would not rip it to shreds - he knew that if that happened, it would fail and become a curiosity like the Bakshi film. So, the quest for the Hobbit being both good and profitable, in the words of Cate Blanchett, stands on a knife edge...

Of course, that horrible thing Branding comes into it. Studios are now into Brand Names and making cruddy sequels and threequels and the mess that was made of Pirates springs to mind, coupled with how the X-Men and Spider-Man series have been flogged to death now, and how the originally funny American Pie series was flogged so hard there weren't even its dusty bones left. So in the search for easy money the studios go for 'more of the same'...but they don't bank on the potential audience getting bored and wanting something new, not having more Brand Names thrown at them. And that boredom could cover the whole genre not just more films in an ongoing series.

For me, I don't understand why there is so much glee that fantasy films have been doing badly! Shooting oneself in foot springs to mind...

[davem]

What I can't see is how you can have the charm (or tweeness) of the beginning of TH, the 'humourous' encounter with the Trolls & the chasing around after the spiders & combine that with the hack & slash action of LotR. Somebody is going to be disappointed. Tolkien couldn't bring LotR into line with the mood & style of LotR so I doubt Jackson et al can.

Another problem will be in expectations - fans of the LotR movies want Aragorn & Legolas doing their 'tricks', wheras, if the movies are at all faithful to the book, what they'll get is a sweet little Bilbo & a troop of comical Dwarves.

I simply can't see a typical movie goer (17 year old male apparently) sitting through two plus hours of that before they get to see a Dragon & a big battle. So, what we'll probably see is a battle in the mountain cave a la the Mines of Moria sequence, a Mirkwood encounter with multiple 'Shelobs' & some vicious combat with the Trolls - all of which will take the Hobbit movie far from its origins. And let's face it, when Jackson & co take off on their own & leave Tolkien behind they tend to mess up big time - which, let's face it, doesn't bode well for the sequel.

[Sauron the White]

I realize that people are expressing thier honest opinion about a future HOBBIT film and certainly have a right to it. After reading many of these posts over the last couple of weeks I do get a feeling that many here want a Jackson HOBBIT film and its follow-up to fail and fail badly. Several seem to be setting the table with a variety of expectations praying that the films bomb. Perhaps some see it as revenge for the super successful LOTR films that they themselves cannot come to appreciate. Some here seem to see Jackson as some type of public sinner or heretic and want him to pay for his transgressions.

Several posts even mention how business will not be very good due to various changes in the market but then seem to want it both ways saying that the film will only be a success if it dumbs down everything, panders to an audience of 16 year old American yahoos with 80 IQ's, and turns the HOBBIT into another chapter of the FRIDAY 13TH series.

People criticize Jacksons use of Gimli in LOTR - too much slapstick and too many crude bodily jokes. Fair enough. But now in davems post we get this

Another problem will be in expectations - fans of the LotR movies want Aragorn & Legolas doing their 'tricks', wheras, if the movies are at all faithful to the book, what they'll get is a sweet little Bilbo & a troop of comical Dwarves.

First of all, what "tricks" did Aragorn do? I realize that some objected to Legolas surfshield routine and the Mumak kill (I personally loved the latter and was indifferent to the former) but I do not know what either has to do with HOBBIT since neither character is in the book. But at the heart of this comment is the idea that in LOTR Gimli was unfairly used for humorous purposes while in HOBBIT mean old Jackson will make the movie so serious that all those funny Dwarves will not be able to do their usual vaudeville routines.

Please make up your mind.

I suspect - not expect, not predict, and certainy do not know for a fact - that Jackson will attempt to make parts of the HOBBIT a bit more serious in tone to make it consistent with LOTR as a franchise series. I also suspect we will see some Dwarven humor along the way. Humor is by far the hardest thing to do in films since everyone has such a different taste for it. Heavy dramatic moments pretty much work or they do not. Emotional love scenes either pull at the heart strings and make you cry or they do not. But humor is so varied and so different depending on the person, that it poses far different problems for a filmmaker. My grown children tell me that TALADEGA NIGHTS is a very funny movie. I find it terrible and there is barely a chuckle in the entire film. I found BORAT to be completely hysterical while others look at each other with mystified looks upon their frowning faces not getting it at all. Who is to say what humor works and what does not? But rest assured, there will probably be Dwarven humor in HOBBIT.

I too hope for some of the HOBBITS sweetness and lighter moments to be a part of the film. I dearly hope so. And I do not think I will be let down in that hope. Just as their were many sweet moments in the LOTR films, that element will be there.