|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estel78
Tol Eressea
Dec 16 2012, 7:18pm
Post #26 of 66
(339 views)
Shortcut
|
True, films you listed sold more tickets, that doesn't diminish LOTR's success. The kind of middle age fantasy is not as popular in the USA as elsewhere, probably because there never was a middle age in the USA, with knights and stuff. This list is just for North America, globally, LOTR is more successful. Also, the more far back in time you go, the more difficult comparisons get. When Star Wars came out in 1977, there was no home video, no home cinema, no video games. Back then, the only option to see a movie again, is to go to a theater, hence movies played for months, even a year. And other distractions like video games were in their infancy. So totally different times.
But my whole point is the huge audience drop-off between LOTR and Hobbit. And we are not talking about times before home video was invented, the last LOTR came out "only" 9 years ago. ROTK was the only movie besides Titanic crossing a billion worldwide, which was huge back then. Hobbit in comparison is "just" another blockbuster.
|
|
|
YaznegSouth40
Rivendell
Dec 16 2012, 7:22pm
Post #27 of 66
(333 views)
Shortcut
|
this movie was as I said AWESOME! The critics are just that...critics . It won't persuade me to like the film any less than I do! Do not worry about the critics if you liked it ...you liked it! It's a open and shut case!
(This post was edited by YaznegSouth40 on Dec 16 2012, 7:23pm)
|
|
|
entmaiden
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Dec 16 2012, 7:33pm
Post #28 of 66
(315 views)
Shortcut
|
that because I don't care about the box office, I'm not relatively sane?
It's fine if you care about the box office, however let's try to avoid denigrating those who do not.
|
|
|
burrahobbit
Rohan
Dec 16 2012, 7:38pm
Post #29 of 66
(321 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm sure it will make more than enough money
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
With three films and 3D money extras, then the studios are going to very happy with this production. It won't do as well as LotR due to the nature of the source material and the fact that AUJ is simply not as good. But it's still going to do very well.
The studios must already planning what will be the next big fantasy franchise to come. The unbelievably popular Harry Potter and Twilight Franchises are finished (thankfully!). The Hobbit appeals mainly to the existing LotR fanbase, and we'll soon be all out of Tolkien material (the Sil's not going to happen surely). What's next? More Hunger Games and New Star Wars it seems.
|
|
|
Crunchable Birdses
Rohan
Dec 16 2012, 7:42pm
Post #30 of 66
(342 views)
Shortcut
|
Sounds good, but I'm not a box office guru
* crunch *
|
|
|
Artemis Roach
Bree
Dec 16 2012, 7:42pm
Post #31 of 66
(318 views)
Shortcut
|
True, films you listed sold more tickets, that doesn't diminish LOTR's success. The kind of middle age fantasy is not as popular in the USA as elsewhere, probably because there never was a middle age in the USA, with knights and stuff. This list is just for North America, globally, LOTR is more successful.
The twitter reference you cited this morning was Domestic only, and you used it to try to prove your point that Hobbit is a "huge disappointment," expecting me to apologize. That's chutzpah!
But now, with pants around ankles, exposed, you want to throw up a green screen and tell me to IGNORE domestic b.o. numbers that hours earlier YOU promoted and championed.
You are tap-dancing on the head of a pin, twisting in the wind, moving the goalposts and making it up as you go along. You told me that B.O. MOJO was an authority - until I looked them up and used their actual numbers that tell a different story than the one you are fixated upon - and then you want me and others to conveniently ignore it.
ROTK was the only movie besides Titanic crossing a billion worldwide, which was huge back then.
You were the one who told me to take into context "exchange rates, inflations," etc.
Box Office Mojo - your source - indeed does exactly this, and places ROTK at No. 52. It's not even in the top 50.
Hobbit in comparison is "just" another blockbuster.
Agreed. When all is said and done, box office numbers might place it somewhere between No. 50 - 100, just like FOTR, TTT and ROTK, which were also ALL similarly blockbusters falling in that same range (77, 62 and 52, respectively.).
(This post was edited by Artemis Roach on Dec 16 2012, 7:44pm)
|
|
|
Estel78
Tol Eressea
Dec 16 2012, 7:42pm
Post #32 of 66
(300 views)
Shortcut
|
Maybe it's because english is not my mother language.
What i was trying to say is this: I'm as upset about this as a sane sports fan would be upset about his favorite team losing the finale. "Relatively sane" because there unfortunately are some people out there that take it too far.
|
|
|
Xanaseb
Tol Eressea
Dec 16 2012, 7:45pm
Post #33 of 66
(281 views)
Shortcut
|
|
lol classic DanielLB :P. In any case, this is quite a lot! o.o //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
--I'm a victim of Bifurcation--
__________________________________________
Join us over at Barliman's chat all day, any day!
__________________________________________
|
|
|
burrahobbit
Rohan
Dec 16 2012, 7:47pm
Post #34 of 66
(296 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Your aggressive bullying style is inappropriate for these boards //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
Artemis Roach
Bree
Dec 16 2012, 7:51pm
Post #35 of 66
(294 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Bottom-liner, or bottom-feeding?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Imagine you are a football fan, watching sport on TV, your favorite team loses. It's that kind of disappointment. 
Which would be fair enough. If you don't like it, you don't like it. But that's NOT what you are doing. You are trying to tell us that box office = "huge disappointment."
For the same reason, your fave football team could win a championship, but there will always be somebody looking at the gate receipts and balancing them against player salaries and going, mmmm, okay, we won the championship, but we only tripled our profit -- that's a huge disappointment. We spent too much money for that championship. We need to blow the whole thing up and deliver a better investment for the shareholder.
|
|
|
Estel78
Tol Eressea
Dec 16 2012, 7:55pm
Post #36 of 66
(291 views)
Shortcut
|
Maybe you should read my posts again, carefully.
You said Deadline "would know better" and hurled insults at me. They projected $115m+ for its domestic take. I said it'll be more like $90m. Turns out it's $85m. I win.
I never said anything about box office mojo being an authority and i never used it as a source in this discussion, you are making stuff up.
Hobbit is much less successful than LOTR, that's a fact. No, Hobbit might not even make it into the top 150 as far as this adjusted for inflation domestic gross list goes.
|
|
|
Artemis Roach
Bree
Dec 16 2012, 7:57pm
Post #37 of 66
(289 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Respectfully - how am I bullying?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I have seen repeated posts from the same posters repeating - "embarrassing," "failure," "huge disappointment, "cringe-worthy,", etc., ad nauseum.
I am providing a counter-point, and I am doing it with facts, reasoned opinion, and a little bit of passion.
If you don't like my case, then make your own counter-point and please stop trying to restrict discussion.
|
|
|
marillaraina
Rohan
Dec 16 2012, 7:58pm
Post #38 of 66
(282 views)
Shortcut
|
With three films and 3D money extras, then the studios are going to very happy with this production. It won't do as well as LotR due to the nature of the source material and the fact that AUJ is simply not as good. But it's still going to do very well.
The studios must already planning what will be the next big fantasy franchise to come. The unbelievably popular Harry Potter and Twilight Franchises are finished (thankfully!). The Hobbit appeals mainly to the existing LotR fanbase, and we'll soon be all out of Tolkien material (the Sil's not going to happen surely). What's next? More Hunger Games and New Star Wars it seems.
Marvel has a LOT of movies coming out. 2 more Thor sequels, 2 more Cap America sequels, 2 more Avengers sequels, Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant Man and coming up quickly the last Iron Man sequel.
|
|
|
Steven Van der Berg
Rivendell
Dec 16 2012, 8:08pm
Post #39 of 66
(312 views)
Shortcut
|
|
While BO. isn't everything, these numbers should give PJ the leverage/trust to make the E.E's and subsequent films as he pleases. ;)
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
burrahobbit
Rohan
Dec 16 2012, 8:09pm
Post #40 of 66
(282 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Are the superhero films a case of diminishing returns?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'm not a comics fan so I'm not sure. But from what I know of the movie industry, they hit on a winning idea (comic book, gangster film, epic...) and then they repeat and repeat that idea until audiences are driven away with boredom and box offices plummet! ;)
I think The Hunger Games is an interesting sign of a new(ish) a direction- with a very strong and attractive female lead, it has action movie appeal and potentially a bigger audience than a typical comic book adaptation. Although admittedly The Dark Knight and the Avengers topped the box office this year.
|
|
|
Estel78
Tol Eressea
Dec 16 2012, 8:16pm
Post #41 of 66
(275 views)
Shortcut
|
Considering the success of recent superhero movies. It's getting a little tiresome, superhero movie after superhero movie. Half of the summer blockbusters are superhero movies. (no i didn't count but it feels like )
As for Hunger Games, i wouldn't call it a new trend, that trend already started with Harry Potter and continued with Twilight. The trend of successful book adaptations of literature for adolescents.
|
|
|
Artemis Roach
Bree
Dec 16 2012, 8:31pm
Post #42 of 66
(266 views)
Shortcut
|
There will always be an audience for action adventure movies that have good characters and stories.
Right now comic book movies are at a premium because the characters and scripts have (mostly) already been written and story-boarded on the pages of the comic books themselves for years & decades.
Digital technology is permitting the comic book films. They previously looked like cheese, now they look stunning. The illustrated stills in the comics are now real-live action, so they aren't going away any time soon.
But distributors make the calls. If audiences want spectacular comic book adaptations & action fantasy films in HFR 3D, then that's what the big box cinemas will give us. If we instead flock to smaller 2D dramas, they'll give us those.
Digital technology works both ways - for the big spectacles, as well as the smaller stories. It is inexpensive, so we'll be seeing it also used to make really awesome small person films, possibly even in HFR 3D, because the 70 mm & 35 mm movie camera has been democratized and no longer only available to a privileged few.
And whereas film prints, distribution costs and millions of dollars were once required to get a film to an audience, today a kid at home can make a video on his allowance money that can be seen by millions. Those genius kids are tomorrows Peter Jacksons.
(This post was edited by Artemis Roach on Dec 16 2012, 8:37pm)
|
|
|
burrahobbit
Rohan
Dec 16 2012, 8:34pm
Post #43 of 66
(260 views)
Shortcut
|
There is continuity in that respect. I guess I thought Hunger Games was a bit more edgy with a strong contemporary satirical element- felt like the excellent Japanese film Battle Royale. I can't bring myself to read or watch Twilight so I don't really have a clue. But 'literature' is a stretch no?! 
My prediction for next year is that the Superman reboot Man of Steel will not bring in the punters like The Dark Knight Rises. But then I though the Avengers movie was awful, so I'm not exactly in line with the mainstream.
|
|
|
Ardamírë
Valinor
Dec 16 2012, 8:45pm
Post #44 of 66
(248 views)
Shortcut
|
I guess I thought Hunger Games was a bit more edgy with a strong contemporary satirical element
The book was this way - the film completely missed the mark.
"...and his first memory of Middle-earth was the green stone above her breast as she sang above his cradle while Gondolin was still in flower." -Unfinished Tales
|
|
|
burrahobbit
Rohan
Dec 16 2012, 8:53pm
Post #45 of 66
(242 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I guess comic book is a pretty wide term
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Skyfall was essentially a comic book story too- near invincible alpha male goodie battles megalomaniac enemy. So yes, I'm sure you're right that there will always be an audience for exciting action adventure movies.
Studios do have to keep their action adventure in current fashion though. Like sword and sandals were back in after Gladiator, then Alexander was so bad that they lost favour again.
I do wonder if Marvel and DC have mined their best comic books/graphic novels (dark knight, watchmen, x-men...) and the long list of future comic adaptation films may be overtaken by new trends.
|
|
|
Estel78
Tol Eressea
Dec 16 2012, 9:01pm
Post #46 of 66
(252 views)
Shortcut
|
Just like they do with the comics.
Superman next year is a reboot, they are already preparing a Batman reboot. Spiderman this year was a reboot.
Most of the Avengers members have their own movies.
It will never end! 
(This post was edited by Estel78 on Dec 16 2012, 9:03pm)
|
|
|
sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea
Dec 16 2012, 9:12pm
Post #47 of 66
(246 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Personally, i gave up on comic book movies
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
when they announced a reboot of the Spiderman movies (really?). I have no interest in seeing any more. I really liked the first two X-Men movies, and i love the original Matrix (THE superhero/comic book movie, even though it might not technically be either of those). Everything after that seems so uninteresting to me. Some of them are ok (Iron Man, Hellboy (actually a lot of fun), Spiderman 1 and 2), but most are just boring or terrible (X-Men 3, Superman Returns, Spiderman 3, the Fantastic 4 movies (esp. terrible), the various Hulk movies, Hellboy 2). I'm just done with them. Everyone i know loved The Avengers, which i guess i'll see, but more Thor or Captain America movies-- ugh. And all that's not even mentioning Green Lantern (double ugh).
All that is to say that i'm suffering from major super hero burn-out. I should be the target audience for this stuff- i've enjoyed comic books in the past, i'm fascinated by special effects, and i love fantasy/sci-fi. It's just... enough with the super heroes already!
|
|
|
Artemis Roach
Bree
Dec 17 2012, 12:20am
Post #48 of 66
(183 views)
Shortcut
|
|
If ya smell, what the Rock, is cooking...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Skyfall was not exactly a Marvel or DC adaptation.
Any story can be made into a comic book. Just as any story can be made into a movie, and every movie can be novelized or adapted as a comic.
To me, a comic book movie is usually comprised of a character or story or franchise that was originally published in a comic book format.
Ergo, Batman, Spider-Man, Superman, X-Men, Watchmen, Daredevil, Avengers - they all fit the bill.
Ghost World - it's a comic book movie.
Ninja Turtles - comic book movie. Kick-Ass - comic book movie. Scott Pilgrim vs The World - comic book movie.
IMO Skyfall does not really fall into the definition of comic book, nor does LOTR or Star Wars.
"Near invincible alpha male hero battles villain" has been around since the classic Greek dramas, and if Skyfall should somehow now fit the definition of a "comic book movie" then I believe it equally qualifies as a Barton Fink "Wrestling Movie."
Skyfall was essentially a comic book story too- near invincible alpha male goodie battles megalomaniac enemy. So yes, I'm sure you're right that there will always be an audience for exciting action adventure movies.
Studios do have to keep their action adventure in current fashion though. Like sword and sandals were back in after Gladiator, then Alexander was so bad that they lost favour again.
I do wonder if Marvel and DC have mined their best comic books/graphic novels (dark knight, watchmen, x-men...) and the long list of future comic adaptation films may be overtaken by new trends.
|
|
|
Artemis Roach
Bree
Dec 17 2012, 12:30am
Post #49 of 66
(177 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Actually, the film hit a bullseye.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The book was this way - the film completely missed the mark.
Cinemascore: A.
$200 mill first weekend.
That means what...? That audiences hated the film and the box office is a "huge disappointment." Wash, rinse, recycle, repeat.
|
|
|
Estel78
Tol Eressea
Dec 17 2012, 12:51am
Post #50 of 66
(177 views)
Shortcut
|
Do you wanna know how much the last Harry Potter opened to worldwide? Why Harry Potter? Because it's comparable to LOTR in terms of worldwide success and it came out just last year and was also in 3D.
Close to $500m. Now THAT's a record.
Now, Potter opened in the summer, Hobbit will have better legs due to less of a rush factor (i hope) and the Christmas holidays coming up. Still, it shows you what potential there is.
(This post was edited by Estel78 on Dec 17 2012, 12:55am)
|
|
|
|
|
