Our Sponsor Sideshow Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
would Battle of the Five Armies had done better at the box office if they had release the EE in theaters
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

1924
Bree

Aug 13 2015, 10:52pm

Post #1 of 37 (2174 views)
Shortcut
would Battle of the Five Armies had done better at the box office if they had release the EE in theaters Can't Post

since it seems one of the biggest complaints was lack of closure and a rushed nature. People might have left more satisfied


(This post was edited by 1924 on Aug 13 2015, 10:55pm)


CathrineB
Rohan


Aug 13 2015, 11:04pm

Post #2 of 37 (2087 views)
Shortcut
too soon [In reply to] Can't Post

Too soon to ask before I have seen the EE. Maybe? More likely than not, but it depends on whether the EE gives those disappointed what they wanted and not more of PJs comedy/legolas fanboy stuff. More of that would hardly make it better.


Dcole4
Rohan

Aug 13 2015, 11:21pm

Post #3 of 37 (2075 views)
Shortcut
I'm not sure... [In reply to] Can't Post

I think it would have. The TE, while enjoyable enough, feels a bit butchered, there is some really choppy edits in several scenes. I am friends with quite a few Tolkien fans, and it was interesting to see the reaction amongst everyone with each film. AUJ was accepted with such enthusiasm. For me it had to do with the pace and the clear respect for the material, the embellishments served to delve into more of the richer world and give time for scenes (Dinner Party, Rivendell, etc) to really come alive. I saw AUJ 6 times in theaters.

DOS and BOTFA were both one-timers. I saw them each free at an advance screening each November, and then paid to see them once on their official release. My friends, who each had seen AUJ between 3-5 times, and each of the LOTR in theaters 3-6 times, didn't even bother to see if upon official release after the advance screenings. I think it really has to do with pace and misguided priorities. I know a lot of hate is directed towards Tauriel and Legolas (some of which comes from me) but I truly think that the feelings only exist because they get a huge amount of screentime, while the characters we love (Dwarves, Radagast, even Bilbo at times) seem to have had a sharp reduction in lines and screentime. You can tell in a lot of scenes that lines for some of the dwarves and Radagast have been cut down, there's choppy editing to suggest this. I feel like the balance was lost in films two and three. There was a more aggressive emphasis on action.

I think BOTFA suffers the most because, as many have pointed out, the Company has been thrown aside. Most of the Dwarves don't even have lines, and what they have is insignificant. This was really the emotional leg of their story, which is an immigrant story, which is rich material to draw from, and yet we just witness scene after scene where they are essentially just featured background actors. There was a chance for a lot of interplay between Bilbo, the Dwarves and Thorin, while they're holed up in Erebor. While I liked how they handled Bilbo/Thorin, I thought it was really disrespectful to the actors who played the rest of the company. Especially when you hear that scenes like the Bofur/Bilbo encounter were cut in favor of not one but two overblown Legolas vs. Bolg sequences. I understand that this is a fantasy action spectacle, but a more nuanced balance between Dwarves, Elves and Men would have been nice.

It's weird because the trilogy just feels very front heavy. PJ and Co took great care in introducing the Dwarves, their motivations, in introducing Radagast and his place in the world, yet he could care less about them in film three and doesn't even give them a chance to exit gracefully. I'm hoping the EE rights this. I feel like it's incredibly odd that PJ was okay with slamming the story to a near halt in AUJ to show us Radagast healing a hedgehog (a scene I liked), but can't be bothered to give the audience a proper send off of the character.

To get back to the point I think the embellishments of DOS and BOTFA came from a less interesting place than those in AUJ. AUJ really felt like it came from the filmmakers behind LOTR, who respected the material and wanted to PROVE their worthiness to adapt it. The changes made for DOS and BOTFA suggest a different attitude, they don't feel like they quite come from the same filmmakers. It started feeling, at least for me and people I've had long debates with, like they were above the material in a weird way, where they were happy to throw in overblown superhero style duels and take huge diversions from the text. LOTR made huge changes, but they always felt like they came from a place that sat comfortably next to the books. Some of the changes in DOS and BOTFA feel like their elbowing the book out of the way.

My apologies for the long winded answer.


Spriggan
Tol Eressea

Aug 13 2015, 11:24pm

Post #4 of 37 (2064 views)
Shortcut
Hmmm I think you might need to separate the few folks here [In reply to] Can't Post

From the general audience. Their general issues seem to have been that the films were too long not too short. A two and a half hour film is far from a rushed experience for most folks!


Glorfindela
Valinor


Aug 13 2015, 11:35pm

Post #5 of 37 (2040 views)
Shortcut
Thoroughly seconded [In reply to] Can't Post

You've hit the nail right on the head. It's all very odd…


In Reply To
I think the embellishments of DOS and BOTFA came from a less interesting place than those in AUJ. AUJ really felt like it came from the filmmakers behind LOTR, who respected the material and wanted to PROVE their worthiness to adapt it. The changes made for DOS and BOTFA suggest a different attitude, they don't feel like they quite come from the same filmmakers. It started feeling, at least for me and people I've had long debates with, like they were above the material in a weird way, where they were happy to throw in overblown superhero style duels and take huge diversions from the text. LOTR made huge changes, but they always felt like they came from a place that sat comfortably next to the books. Some of the changes in DOS and BOTFA feel like their elbowing the book out of the way.



Avandel
Half-elven


Aug 13 2015, 11:44pm

Post #6 of 37 (2029 views)
Shortcut
For my part.... [In reply to] Can't Post

Without seeing the EE - for me - probably. The pace for me is a factor, as are some other issues. Can't remember how much I saw AUJ, but I know I watched the BR obsessively. Pretty sure I saw DOS over 20 times in theaters - couldn't get enough of it especially in jaw-dropping IMAX.

BOFA? - I stopped at six. Even now I tend to watch DOS and BOFA back to back, because w. AUJ and DOS I feel like I truly sink into Middle Earth, but BOFA I am charging through it, mostly. (Of course it is nice to see Smaug head for Laketown and have immediate follow-throughTongue).

So perhaps it affected people who might have done repeat views.Unsure


Thrain II
Lorien


Aug 14 2015, 12:00am

Post #7 of 37 (2004 views)
Shortcut
Third-ed? [In reply to] Can't Post

I completely agree with you Dcole.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Aug 14 2015, 12:19am

Post #8 of 37 (1984 views)
Shortcut
Let me just say... [In reply to] Can't Post

I think that TH:BotFA might have performed better if it had been edited differently. Resolving the plot-threads could have been emphasized over the side-stories involving secondary characters, resulting in a stronger ending.

"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock


Avandel
Half-elven


Aug 14 2015, 12:31am

Post #9 of 37 (1965 views)
Shortcut
Hear, hear [In reply to] Can't Post

Even if it's been said in other posts - IMO well said:


Quote
This was really the emotional leg of their story, which is an immigrant story, which is rich material to draw from, and yet we just witness scene after scene where they are essentially just featured background actors. There was a chance for a lot of interplay between Bilbo, the Dwarves and Thorin, while they're holed up in Erebor. While I liked how they handled Bilbo/Thorin, I thought it was really disrespectful to the actors who played the rest of the company.


Well, long after the fact, BOFA for me WAS startlingShocked - I was SURE I was going to see a rumored scene between Bofur and Bilbo - for me there were welcome surprises like the chilling and heartbreaking scene between Thorin and Dwalin - and the way Bilbo takes a far more active role in the battle vs. the book - and RA's haunting, mad/sane portrayal of the dragon-sick Thorin. Also I think Bard vs. Smaug was beautifully handled, and Bard's rising to being a leader - as well as his interaction with Thorin.

But I'll agree there was a focus lost w. BOFA - as has been suggested most tellingly w. Alfrid, Tauriel and Legolas and shifting the focus from the source material - e.g., dwarves, and for that matter Beorn's role in the battle, and to some degree Bilbo although he is heroic throughout. So I'll agree w.:


Quote
It started feeling, at least for me and people I've had long debates with, like they were above the material in a weird way


Maybe not ABOVE the material, but not TRUSTING the materialFrown - and not even trusting themselves, really - re the early hype and discussion of the dwarves, and elevating the race. It hardly elevated the race IMO to sideline most of the representatives of that race, featured through 2 films, to being extras in favor of elf-time (and not even Beorn-time, for that matter, IMO a true representative of the old magic of Middle Earth and the wild and that region). IMO Richard Armitage is marvelousHeartHeartHeart, yes, but with his company being made up of outstanding actors, "carrying" the dwarf race in a sense was a weight he shouldn't have had to bear so much of.

Re the material - one of the most egregious for me being the handling of the Durins in the end - that, yes, was an unfathomable move, evidently merely for the sake of cultivating a "dramatic" scene for an elf, which IMO, alas, resulted in the loss of a rich, tragic, yet potentially epic and powerful pivotal scene that would have highlighted the bonds, utter loyalty and fierce courage of the dwarven race, in favor of a rather ordinary boy-dies-for-his-girl scenario. And since the boy and girl had only known each other for a few hours, really, it was hard feel that much about it for me except vague irritation (and where is Fili? What's going on with the other dwarves? I wanna get back to Thorin fighting! Where is Thranduil and why didn't he follow his ONLY SON to Ravenhill? Where's Gandalf? Where's Beorn...?)

Although - it does leave the door wide open for a reboot - which I am not saying will be betterUnsure. If and when it happens, I may well be mourning for Peter Jackson's remarkable sense of the aesthetic, casting ability, scripts, ability to beautifully frame and yes, pace a shot. But I suspect a reboot will be totally off the charts OR will take the tact of staying strictly to the source.




Earl
Forum Admin / Moderator


Aug 14 2015, 5:36am

Post #10 of 37 (1849 views)
Shortcut
PJ also said he was enjoying diverging from the book [In reply to] Can't Post

So I do believe many of your points are dead on.

In LOTR, the changes always seemed like they were made to suit the film medium, but still had their roots in Tolkien. I remember Philippa saying in one of the documentaries that no matter how far they strayed, they always came back to the source material, because they realized Tolkien knew what he was doing.

I think she said this in connection with the debate about Arwen being a warrior versus a woman who didn't need to have a sword in her hand to show her strength.

With the Hobbit films it really seems like even the filmmakers were at times confused by some of the changes they made and didn't know how to resolve them.

The Hobbit Soundtracks - Being an online archive of information concerning Howard Shore's score for The Hobbit films.


squiggle
Rivendell

Aug 14 2015, 5:58am

Post #11 of 37 (1836 views)
Shortcut
DOS theatrical wasn't as good as AUJs overall so... [In reply to] Can't Post

that may be part of it.

But DOS ee is blimin great Smile


Eleniel
Tol Eressea


Aug 14 2015, 6:44am

Post #12 of 37 (1808 views)
Shortcut
Completely agree... [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
AUJ was accepted with such enthusiasm. For me it had to do with the pace and the clear respect for the material, the embellishments served to delve into more of the richer world and give time for scenes (Dinner Party, Rivendell, etc) to really come alive. I saw AUJ 6 times in theaters.




and would just add that it was most likely the professional critical reviews of AUJ that were the kiss of death for maintaining that approach. I suspect the Studio were seriously concerned and intervened accordingly.




"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
¯ Victoria Monfort


Dipling
Lorien

Aug 14 2015, 8:03am

Post #13 of 37 (1756 views)
Shortcut
Me thinking the same [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
and would just add that it was most likely the professional critical reviews of AUJ that were the kiss of death for maintaining that approach. I suspect the Studio were seriously concerned and intervened accordingly.


But i cannot belive that Peter Jackson would give up on studio pressure. If that happened, we will hear something someday.
Also the studio should believe in PJ and let him do the job. Now he was on a constant pressure.


Glorfindela
Valinor


Aug 14 2015, 8:36am

Post #14 of 37 (1725 views)
Shortcut
Pointing the finger at the studio [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To

In Reply To
and would just add that it was most likely the professional critical reviews of AUJ that were the kiss of death for maintaining that approach. I suspect the Studio were seriously concerned and intervened accordingly.


But i cannot belive that Peter Jackson would give up on studio pressure. If that happened, we will hear something someday.
Also the studio should believe in PJ and let him do the job. Now he was on a constant pressure.


We don't know the facts, and I don't think the 'studio' should constantly be blamed and used as an excuse for the things many do not like about the Hobbit films. PJ clearly appeared to relish the scenes/characters that many find problematic, and as is pointed out above, the film-makers also enjoyed straying from the plot – something that was not apparent in LotR, where they appeared to have much more respect for Tolkien's work and repeatedly said they were always referring to it. Their change in attitude appears to have had a detrimental effect on the second and third films in particular. IMHO.Angelic


Shagrat
Gondor

Aug 14 2015, 9:20am

Post #15 of 37 (1696 views)
Shortcut
The 'official' line [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm not entirely convinced by some of what Jackson and Boyens were coming out with in public. For one, I never for a second bought all that stuff Jackson was saying about BotFA being a 'psychological thriller' and his 'All the President's Men'. It struck me as nonsense at the time, and now I'm convinced he was saying that to justify the short length and quick pace of the film, which I really feel was Warner's doing, a response to the lengths of the previous two (especially AUJ). Similarly, the more he talked about enjoying diverting from the book, you wonder if he was preparing people for the major changes in store.

It is their job to defend their films, and the creative reasoning involved. Jackson is hardly likely to come out and say "Oh we added this because the studio's wanted it", or to discuss any disagreements he might have had during production. Pretty much all the great directors are what we might deem 'studio men' and those that aren't either don't go far or don't work for the major studios. Warner's investment was such that they could ultimately call the shots. For a recent relevant example, look at Whedon's issues with Marvel while making Avengers 2, and this is even after he directed the first film which made $1.5b at the box office.

This is not a case of trying to defend Jackson for everything. There are controversial elements of these films which are obviously his doing - the humour, certain portrayals, the use of CGI. That being said, I too love AUJ, and, like Dcole said, it's very hard to believe that DoS and BotFA were made by the same filmmakers. Was it because Jackson had complete free reign on AUJ, as many have speculated? I don't know. I know there will always be people on here shooting down us 'conspiracy theorists', but the truth is none of us know, and are unlikely to find out. So permit us our speculation. Wink


(This post was edited by Shagrat on Aug 14 2015, 9:22am)


Spriggan
Tol Eressea

Aug 14 2015, 9:23am

Post #16 of 37 (1700 views)
Shortcut
Well, the critics and most everyone else... [In reply to] Can't Post

As far as one can tell, the critics focus on the Bag End sequence, the pace, the length and the lack of progress seem to have been decent reflections of wider audience reactions (oh and the fact that people didn't go wild for HFR).


Glorfindela
Valinor


Aug 14 2015, 10:56am

Post #17 of 37 (1646 views)
Shortcut
Oh, sure [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I know there will always be people on here shooting down us 'conspiracy theorists', but the truth is none of us know, and are unlikely to find out. So permit us our speculation. Wink


I agree with you – and I don't think we will ever know the facts for sure. PJ no doubt has contractual obligations with Warner Bros that prevent him from speaking out on his relationship with them.

I also agree with your statement that 'There are controversial elements of these films which are obviously his doing - the humour, certain portrayals, the use of CGI.' These are things that PJ appears pretty obviously to relish. He's also perfectly capable of producing scenes with great depth and meaning, beautifully acted. It is almost like looking at the work of two film-makers sometimes.Wink

I don't know anything about Whedon/Avengers 2 since I am not interested in the film, have not seen it and don't have time/the interest to look into its background (though I very much like Whedon's work on Buffy).

Obviously, anyone can speculate all they like – but others may speculate in other ways.WinkTongue


dormouse
Half-elven


Aug 14 2015, 11:18am

Post #18 of 37 (1625 views)
Shortcut
Until we've seen the EE.... [In reply to] Can't Post

... how can anyone know?

Technical issues apart, the biggest complaints about AUJ from professional film reviewers related to the slow pace: they seemed more satisfied with the pace of BotFA.

And it is worth remembering that BotFA did very well at the box office. I know a lot of people here are unhappy with it but I'm not sure that feeling's general - and I doubt very much if the studio feels the same way.


Spriggan
Tol Eressea

Aug 14 2015, 12:12pm

Post #19 of 37 (1591 views)
Shortcut
BOFA probably sold more tickets than AUJ. [In reply to] Can't Post

Now if the EE would have influenced exchange rates then we would be talking!


lionoferebor
Rohan

Aug 14 2015, 2:15pm

Post #20 of 37 (1515 views)
Shortcut
Worldwide Box Office Earnings [In reply to] Can't Post

AUJ - $1,017,003,568
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hobbit.htm

DOS - $960,366,855
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hobbit2.htm

BOTFA - $955,119,788
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hobbit3.htm

TOTAL EARNINGS - $2,932,490,211

And because I was curious, here are the worldwide box office earnings for LOTR. Notice while the total earnings are less than TH, the earnings increased with each film. Whereas TH earnings decreased with each film.

FOTR - $315,544,750
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/...lowshipofthering.htm

TTT - $926,047,111
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/...es/?id=twotowers.htm

ROTK - 1,119,929,521
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/...=returnoftheking.htm

TOTAL EARNINGS - $2,361,521,382


Spriggan
Tol Eressea

Aug 14 2015, 2:22pm

Post #21 of 37 (1510 views)
Shortcut
Yes, earnings - not number of tickets sold. [In reply to] Can't Post

All a film can do is get people to see it - it can't influence exchange rates.


lionoferebor
Rohan

Aug 14 2015, 3:06pm

Post #22 of 37 (1471 views)
Shortcut
Well... [In reply to] Can't Post

unfortunately I was not able to find information in reference to the exact number of tickets sold. But you are more than welcome to do the research yourself. Wink The best I was able to find was earnings...and I would think if a movie earned 1.9 billion at the box office then more than likely it sold more tickets than a movie that made 9 million at the box office.


dormouse
Half-elven


Aug 14 2015, 3:23pm

Post #23 of 37 (1453 views)
Shortcut
Well, not necessarily.... [In reply to] Can't Post

..it would depend what proportion of those earnings were for seats paid for in currencies other than the US dollar, and what the exchange rate was between the dollar and those currencies.

With BotFA, for example, I remember it being said that the film was not earning as much from China as might have been anticipated because although the ticket sales were extremely good the currency had dropped in value against the dollar. For businesses working internationally it does make an awful lot of difference. And these films have done extremely well internationally.


Goblin Mutant
The Shire


Aug 14 2015, 3:28pm

Post #24 of 37 (1448 views)
Shortcut
A premature question [In reply to] Can't Post

A premature question to ask before anyone knows what the extended edition is.

Do you think that any of the previous LOTR or Hobbit Extended Editions would have done better at the box office? I don't think so. Maybe BOTFA would be the exception but how would I know without seeing it?

I doubt it would be the case though when seeing the great reviews the Theatrical Edition got in the major newspapers over here and the reception it got from my acquaintances. A work colleague told me it was the best film he had ever seen. I don't agree with that statement, but on the other hand I don't think that anyone is lamenting the lack of scenes with Beorn or Fili outside of the hardcore Tolkien fandom. Or the lack of a funeral scene or the whereabouts of the Arkenstone which have already played out its (important) role in the film.

Here's to Dwarves that go swimming with little hairy women.

(This post was edited by Goblin Mutant on Aug 14 2015, 3:30pm)


Spriggan
Tol Eressea

Aug 14 2015, 3:32pm

Post #25 of 37 (1442 views)
Shortcut
I'm not quite sure what you mean. [In reply to] Can't Post

Perhaps I'm misreading you but you seem rather dubious? And yes, that would have to be one heck of exchange rate swing to make $9m worth of tickets fewer tickets than $1.9b worth!

We aren't going to be able to work out the exact numbers (hence me saying probably) but the estimates in reports at the time talked about an effect of circa 15%, roughly $90m etc.

There several articles at the time discussing exchange rates in relation to TH films and, of course, thousands of articles on the $ value at the time more generally.

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.