Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles 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
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
By the numbers, because......well, because we can.
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Escapist
Gondor


Oct 28 2013, 11:41pm

Post #26 of 47 (325 views)
Shortcut
Speaking of the Avengers buzz, though [In reply to] Can't Post

Iron Man 3 didn't break 1 billion so I take that back - DOS probably will beat Thor.


Elessar
Valinor


Oct 28 2013, 11:41pm

Post #27 of 47 (328 views)
Shortcut
Cool! [In reply to] Can't Post

Cool! I didn't remember the number and was just using the critic number for the sake of the discussion with estel. I would agree the audience percentage is probably more correct. If it stays that high or is higher there is no doubt it makes 1 billion at least.

PS: I also used the critic score because there are folks that like to use that number as the gospel number. As I said I think the GA % is more accurate.



(This post was edited by Elessar on Oct 28 2013, 11:45pm)


Elessar
Valinor


Oct 28 2013, 11:43pm

Post #28 of 47 (323 views)
Shortcut
It's just got everything going for it [In reply to] Can't Post

All the things I mentioned and the fact Iron Man 3 made 1.2 billion keeps that going.



Escapist
Gondor


Oct 28 2013, 11:46pm

Post #29 of 47 (314 views)
Shortcut
Oh wait - I was looking at the domestic number -doh! [In reply to] Can't Post

Sometimes ... yeah ... I wonder about myself.
But - in that case, I have to change my mind again. That Avengers Buzz is probably a thing and Thor will probably clear 1 billion - close match for DOS .... probably not going to beat it ... but close.


Escapist
Gondor


Oct 28 2013, 11:47pm

Post #30 of 47 (310 views)
Shortcut
Yeah ... sorry about that ... [In reply to] Can't Post

this whole "looking at one window and typing in another window in just a few seconds publicly without any personal editing filter first" thing just leaves me prone to the dumbs ...


Elessar
Valinor


Oct 28 2013, 11:55pm

Post #31 of 47 (304 views)
Shortcut
It's all good [In reply to] Can't Post

When I'm typing on my iPad or iPhone I make some really odd errors and the editing window needs to be long for people like me. lol



Escapist
Gondor


Oct 28 2013, 11:57pm

Post #32 of 47 (304 views)
Shortcut
I need [In reply to] Can't Post

to start using the edit button and try harder at pretending to be perfect.Angelic

Except that I don't know if that really matters anymore! Evil


Elessar
Valinor


Oct 29 2013, 12:28am

Post #33 of 47 (289 views)
Shortcut
I hear that lol [In reply to] Can't Post

 



AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Oct 29 2013, 4:34am

Post #34 of 47 (273 views)
Shortcut
I think we have to reign in just how many Dragons, especially of the talking variety, we have seen. Falkor, [In reply to] Can't Post

Connery's Draco and, less notably due to it being a less iconic movie, Sapphira. Falkor, despite being a wonderful chAracter in a Wonderful movie, had the face of a dog. Draco and the movie he was in get a lot of flack. Lots of shrugs have been aimed at Eragon and Sapphira. And they were ALL, good, friendly, buddy dragons. Like Petes. Who here can name a film Dragon, since the animated hobbit, who was massive and vicious, like the Reign of Fire ones but moreso (Smaug seems indeed to be larger than the bull-drake from that film) AND spoke, and was brilliantly clever (GOD, may they absolutely keep his lines concerning the dubious anitcs of dwarves, and the perils of travel and shipment not mentioned by his companions). The combination, added to the stellar grapics, will very likely live up to the hype.

There really have not been that many recent films featuring dragons, and certainly not many, aside from the Potter films, that huge numbers of people have actually seen. Also, both the Potter dragons look to weigh in at a much smaller size division than Smaug the magnificent, neither of them spoke a lick, and one of them was a chained, scarred and broken, pitiable creature.

Smaug The Magnificent will bedazzle, I think.

In Reply To


Quote
As for Smaug being "yet another dragon"? I would disagree. Every news agency has highlighted Smaug when publishing the release of each of the new trailers. Hell, the titles of the articles were mostly Smaug-related quips. He's not just another dragon. No other dragon has generated THIS much hype. Twitter feeds and sites that show you top trends are evidence of this. #SMAUG was trending greatly at the time of the trailers.






I agree that people do not expect another dragon... but that is where a danger lies. I am sure Smaug will be a rather traditional dragon and will never be able to meet some of the insane expectations. And I am sure that many just wait for one mediocre CGI shot of Smaug to label the whole attempt to bring him to screen as failed. We simply saw much more stellar CGI to compare with since LotR which was groundbreaking at the time.

So despite my own excitement and my careful belief that DoS will be received more positively by critics and reviewers (and some of the self-proclaimed movie experts), I wouldn't be exactly surprised if at least the buzz will remain to be kept down by some of the underwhelment that was generated in some circles with (and sometimes even before) AUJ. I am not convinced critics who hated the look of part one will easily be turned around.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Oct 29 2013, 5:05am

Post #35 of 47 (269 views)
Shortcut
No, Estel, 1 billion and a 300 plus million domestic is still a big deal, when one considers what [In reply to] Can't Post

happened to the Narnia movies. It is possible even for a well known brand to fall short to the point where only genre fans and series devoutees, and the routine, every other weekend movies as the go to Saturday night event crowd see it, and it makes the basic, bottom tier blockbuster net of about 100 million, which doesn't even cover the production cost for a projected mega-blockbuster.

An Unexpected fell well within the line of reasonable expectations. What it did NOT do was manage to draw in every single person who ever saw the former trilogy, while also picking up everyone over the standard toddler age who wasn't born during the former films, adding also everyone who didn't see the Rings films but came to them Johnny come lately through DVD and TV, either as a result of critical and awards acclaim or relatives-friends or just via catching it on cable or tv whilst settling in for the evening, as well as every person who didn't like the more grim tone of the other movies, but likes Enchanted Realm settings in general. Had it done that, it would have made something like 575 million in American United States alone, and made something near to a billion and a half internationally. That is, of course, the scenario avid fans and the studios hoped for, but it wasn't an especially reasonable expectation.

In Reply To
You speak as if you can absolutely not see how DOS can possibly decrease from AUJ. Seriously? It's not about how i feel or you feel about the movie, the reception was middling, that's not just "some" people that didn't like it or thought it was a step (or a few steps) down from LOTR. There just isn't nearly the same level of excitement for the new installment as back when LOTR was the hot thing. A dropoff of $100m would be -10%, which is not that much when you think about it but a dropoff nonetheless.

We have gone through multiple times why a billion is not a big accomplishment anymore, at least not when it comes to a prequel to LOTR. If a movie like Gravity would do it, yeah, that would be an accomplishment but not Hobbit. It's all about expectations. It sort of saved face by barely managing the billion but many box office (armchair) pundits had it doing more than that.

I think i never used the word failure. A disappointment, yes.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Oct 29 2013, 5:08am

Post #36 of 47 (281 views)
Shortcut
I tenatively agree here. I am wary. It all depends. If Thor makes about the same increase, for its flux [In reply to] Can't Post

that Iron Man did, it should do very well, but still fall short of clearing 300 million, though just barely, and about 600 million to 700 million international, causing it to still fall short of An Unexpected and probably of Smaug.

IF, on the other hand, Avengers has now given every Avenger featuring film a floor of millions 400 high... well dammit all. lol

In Reply To
The first one made $450m worldwide. While i see an increase due to the "Avengers factor" i don't think it'll come that close to a billion. DOS should make more than Thor 2, even if by a little.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


Estel78
Tol Eressea

Oct 29 2013, 7:37am

Post #37 of 47 (233 views)
Shortcut
A barely fresh RT critics rating i would consider middling. [In reply to] Can't Post

The public by all accounts received it a little better but even there doesn't seem to be a genuine enthusiasm for it either.

I wasn't more wrong than you when predicting AUJ's box office run post release, i would say to the contrary.

I guess Avatar 2 grossing 1 billion would be a heck of a result, too...


starlesswinter
Lorien

Oct 29 2013, 7:46am

Post #38 of 47 (236 views)
Shortcut
Percentages on reviews are deceptive, anyway [In reply to] Can't Post

A film with 100% good reviews simply means that everyone who saw it liked it enough to give it a good review, but perhaps half of those will never watch it again because they just found it "enjoyable" and nothing more, hence the reason you see so many "this Pixar film is overrated" articles online. They're films that many, many people like, but then you have the odd critical person who wonders why Toy Story 2 is better reviewed than There Will Be Blood. A film with 60% could have half who absolutely love it and half who absolutely hate it. It's the old argument about perspective, but it's true. These percentages don't account for passion and the level of respect aimed at films.


Bernhardina
Rohan


Oct 29 2013, 9:27am

Post #39 of 47 (218 views)
Shortcut
Decrease [In reply to] Can't Post

I've been wondering about this. I actually think AUJ did not win enough new fans over. It certainly dissappointed many old fans (not me)... Frown

Boromir: ONE DOES NOT SIMPLY WALK INTO MORDOR...

Gandalf: FLY, YOU FOOLS!


Elessar
Valinor


Oct 29 2013, 10:28am

Post #40 of 47 (206 views)
Shortcut
The public [In reply to] Can't Post

Yeah, they did. 82% is a solid number and I'm sorry shows a pretty good enthusiasm for a movie. If I remember correctly it got an A-A+ cinemas score from audiences which is pretty good. So we can stop acting like AUJ barely made a blip on people's radar.

I did predict more than a billion but it still made it to 1 billion, which I'm sorry is still a big deal . That shows the movie was still a huge success . You started calling it a failure when it didn't crack 100+ opening weekend. I admit I was wrong in the amount I predicted but I wasn't wrong in that it was a huge success.

It would be. Fact is 1 billion is still a big deal.



Arannir
Valinor


Oct 29 2013, 10:39am

Post #41 of 47 (216 views)
Shortcut
It is funny... [In reply to] Can't Post

... how a lot if the so-called disappointment with AUJ numbers came from people who started the insane high predictions in the first place.

I said it before and will say it again, there were also more than enough people before the release who said that TH simply doesn't have the same franchise vibe and buzz this time around and other things are now the "the big thing".

The 1.5 billion predictions were numbers I only saw on boards such as those of imdb and boxoffice.com by self proclaimed experts... Experts who are more concerned about their franchise wars than anything else. And even there, if one reads closely, careful voices were there.

Actually I wonder whether I wanted a 1.5 plus movie if that would have meant to get a story such as that of Avengers or Avatar, both of which I found to be such soulless movies.



ďA dragon is no idle fancy. Whatever may be his origins, in fact or invention, the dragon in legend is a potent creation of menís imagination, richer in significance than his barrow is in gold.Ē J.R.R. Tolkien

Words of wisdom that should be remembered - both by critics, purists and anyone in between.

(This post was edited by Arannir on Oct 29 2013, 10:41am)


Arannir
Valinor


Oct 29 2013, 11:01am

Post #42 of 47 (193 views)
Shortcut
Oh no, I do agree. [In reply to] Can't Post

It is just that I get the feeling that some have insane expectations without even knowing themselves what Smaug should actually look like to please them. And others simply wait for another "proof" that CGI in this movies is flawed.

All of this is premature of course, just makes me weary whether some might not already have made up their mind, especially when I read how amazing the dragons in Game of Thrones look and how Smaug thus far seems ridiculous in comparison etc.

I think there is not much reason in that discussion in some circles, just franchise wars (it seems like a mission of some Catching Fire fans to see the Floppit happen) and trolling.

But thankfully the large majority of viewers is not influenced that much by those parallel internet worlds. We certainly shouldn't be influenced by it :) Just wanted to show how Smaug might be perceived by some in a very biased way.



ďA dragon is no idle fancy. Whatever may be his origins, in fact or invention, the dragon in legend is a potent creation of menís imagination, richer in significance than his barrow is in gold.Ē J.R.R. Tolkien

Words of wisdom that should be remembered - both by critics, purists and anyone in between.


Estel78
Tol Eressea

Oct 29 2013, 11:47am

Post #43 of 47 (190 views)
Shortcut
Reasonable expectations [In reply to] Can't Post

$1.2b - $1.4b was a reasonable range considering the franchise's history and how box office evolved in the decade since ROTK opened. Many were predicting in that range, not just fanboys. Fanboys went higher, some of them on this very board.

Buzz is a reflection of people's reactions to things they get presented to them. AUJ just didn't look as good in the marketing material. And the movie itself wasn't up to par with LOTR.


Arannir
Valinor


Oct 29 2013, 12:01pm

Post #44 of 47 (191 views)
Shortcut
Reasonable maybe, but speculations nontheless. And not shared by everybody. [In reply to] Can't Post

 



ďA dragon is no idle fancy. Whatever may be his origins, in fact or invention, the dragon in legend is a potent creation of menís imagination, richer in significance than his barrow is in gold.Ē J.R.R. Tolkien

Words of wisdom that should be remembered - both by critics, purists and anyone in between.


AinurOlorin
Half-elven


Oct 29 2013, 8:10pm

Post #45 of 47 (138 views)
Shortcut
The Game of Throne Dragons (and their lovely "mother") are gorgeous. lol [In reply to] Can't Post

However those dragons are babies. If Smaug can look as photorealistic (and on this budget he just aught to), and bring with it his titanic size, it will be amazing.

Also, damn Catching Fire, and to hell with some Hunger Games. lol

In Reply To
It is just that I get the feeling that some have insane expectations without even knowing themselves what Smaug should actually look like to please them. And others simply wait for another "proof" that CGI in this movies is flawed.

All of this is premature of course, just makes me weary whether some might not already have made up their mind, especially when I read how amazing the dragons in Game of Thrones look and how Smaug thus far seems ridiculous in comparison etc.

I think there is not much reason in that discussion in some circles, just franchise wars (it seems like a mission of some Catching Fire fans to see the Floppit happen) and trolling.

But thankfully the large majority of viewers is not influenced that much by those parallel internet worlds. We certainly shouldn't be influenced by it :) Just wanted to show how Smaug might be perceived by some in a very biased way.


"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"

"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."


cats16
Valinor


Oct 29 2013, 10:17pm

Post #46 of 47 (125 views)
Shortcut
Wolf of Wall Street pushed back for a holiday release [In reply to] Can't Post

Not like it will cut down DOS by a great deal, but it's still something to throw into the mix here.


Escapist
Gondor


Oct 30 2013, 1:05am

Post #47 of 47 (130 views)
Shortcut
Expectations change sometimes [In reply to] Can't Post

when new information becomes available.

At first I didn't think AUJ would break $1 billion - until I saw the other records it broke on opening night and the pace it was making over the holiday.
I didn't think it would win awards - but it did. Comedy doesn't draw the same money and acclaim as violence and drama these days (although in my opinion we could use a great deal more of the former and a great deal less of the latter). Fumbling reluctant anti-heroes mumbling about their toast and elderly wanderers most noted for their excellent fireworks don't get the same attention from people as epic burly godlike comic book action heroes. A bunch of bearded guys on a long camping adventure isn't as exciting to most people as royals making heads roll in dark corners of shadowing castles. So I was surprised, to be honest, when AUJ hit as hard as it did at the box office and with the general audience. Maybe there is something about a little laughter and comaraderie that people have a spot for after all in the midst of everything else. I actually think that for many people, it supplied a bit of needed mirth and this could account for some of the repeated viewings at the theater. I may have misread the audience in that respect originally.

So, seeing the reaction to missing Legolas (and Tauriel btw) in AUJ, the stronger response to AUJ than what I expected (in the face of extreme panning from top critics), the appeal that the dragon had in AUJ (which becomes a greater feature now in DOS), the reactions to the elves from spoiled material, the fandom that has developed since LOTR for Sauron and his minions (which will feature stronger in DOS), the emergence of "hot dwarves" as a "thing", and bearing in mind the general fandom towards brutal political mayhem and soap-opera-esque drama stunts (so much opportunity for both growing and growing with each second of screen time on this story) - I can only guess that DOS will do better than AUJ (a guess I have always made from well before the movies ever came out) which was between 1-1.1 billion - which leads logically to 1.2 billion + (of course maybe I am missing something again?). Maybe 1.1 billion + is a more conservative guess but ... I don't think that accounts for all the factors that I listed above - not even close.

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.