AUJ - make or break?

macfalk

macfalk

Valinor
Do you also feel that AUJ will sort of be the make-or-break movie? The film that will tell us all if PJ lost his touch after these 10 years, or he he will succeed bringing us back to the world he so beautifully did a decade ago.

Also, he the first film fails at the any office, we are less likely to get those extra treats such as extended edition.
 
Last edited:
- if the first film fails at the box-office, it would be make-or-break, not only for pJ but the whole Hobbit (TM) franchise. Think of all those action figures, unsold on warehouse shelves...
.
 
Though that sounds rather apocalyptic to me - it's certainly not how I feel about the film's prospects from the bits we've seen. I can't see any serious possibility of failure. And Peter Jackson and Warners must be pretty confident to put resources into a third film.

But yes, any artistic venture like this is a risk and if the first film doesn't do well.... I don't know really. Most of the filming is done already so I suppose there would still be a complete trilogy - and maybe extended editions would be seen as a way to bring in more money.

Let's just hope it does do well!
 
- so it's hardly the end of the world if it fails, is it? (As a side note, I have often noticed how religious references are used in relation to pJ and his movies here on TorN).

"And Peter Jackson and Warners must be pretty confident to put resources into a third film. "

Must be, I suppose - still smacks of greed to me, though. And Pride - with a capital P, in keeping with the Bilblical tone - [:)] - and we know what goes before a fall, don't we?

"I suppose there would still be a complete trilogy - and maybe extended editions would be seen as a way to bring in more money. "

yup - if the second two go straight to video, WB would have to make back their outlay somehow.
.


 
Last edited:
After a decade, PJ's isn't really riding on his LOTR success anymore, except maybe in the eyes of his own fans *points finger at myself*

After all the decisions taken concerning The Hobbit (i.e., 3D, 48 fps, trilogy), I'm sure the industry will be watching closely and critics will be ready to pick the films apart.

So yeah, looks like PJ does have something to prove with AUJ in order to keep the movie-going public even interested in two more films being released a year/a year and a half later.
 
There's absoutely no way in which An Unexpected Journey will fail. Sure, it might get slighted by critics (in fact, I fully expect it - they loving claiming a scalp) but the audience expectation for the movie (and the inevitable marketing drive) will be so strong that it will make $1 billion. Look at the takings for the appalling Phantom Menace.

Secondly, even if it does get slighted and does slightly under-perform in cinemas, that will actually increase WB's need to churn out the Limited Edition and Extended DVDs and blu-rays in order to recuperate any perceived losses. Plenty of movies have "failed" at the box office only to become profitable on home-video formats.

So, An Unexpected Journey (and indeed the entire trilogy) is going to be a colossal financial success. Whether it's a critical one, we'll have to wait and see.
 
For a purist it might be the main thing but its only an adaptation, for me the main thing will be this: will they succeed as movies in their own right, while still keeping the tone of JRRT's masterpiece?
 
I'm quite confident that this movie will be financially successful. Probably more so than the avengers. So if we are talking about financially speaking, it will do fine. There's just way too much anticipation for it to fail. I have no doubt in my mind that AUJ will be record breaking

But the real question is what happens after everyone sees AUJ. If it's good an people love it, then they will most certainly return for the next two. If it's absolutely horrible it might possibly hurt the box office for the two sequels. But then again, lots of people (myself included) continued to torture ourselves after having seen the first of the Star Wars prequels thinking, "maybe the next one will be better."

So there is no telling what will happen.
 
I used the word 'apocalyptic' only in the context in which macfalk was speaking - the film and its significance for Peter Jackson's career - 'is this make or break'. Knowing macfalk's posts to be generally favourable towards the films I thought his tone here was, well, surprisingly apocalyptic in that context. And only in that context. The reference was to macfalk's feelings towards the film, not to Peter Jackson.

For the record - and you should know this without my saying it - I don't worship Peter Jackson or use religious references in connection with him. He's just a film director, some of whose films I happen to have enjoyed. From his point of view I don't think the three film decision was about making more money. I think it's more about making the best film version of The Hobbit he can as he sees it. He wants to end up with a film he feels satisfied with. Of course Warner Brothers want to make as much money as they can out of it - they're a business and isn't that what businesses do? With that in mind, it does seem to me to show confidence that they've agreed to spend more on it at this stage.

You don't like the previous films and wish the coming ones weren't coming. Fair enough. I thoroughly enjoyed the previous ones, for all their faults, and hope to enjoy The Hobbit. But it's only a (3-part) film. I'm looking forward to it but I don't have a 'worry list' about it as many here seem to. It will be what it is and I'll enjoy it or not and life will go on. If you don't mind me saying, I think your attitude to it is the one that sometimes verges on the apocalyptic.... [;)]



 
For a purist it might be the main thing but its only an adaptation, for me the main thing will be this: will they succeed as movies in their own right, while still keeping the tone of JRRT's masterpiece?
Click to expand...


Agreed [:)]
 
For a purist it might be the main thing but its only an adaptation, for me the main thing will be this: will they succeed as movies in their own right, while still keeping the tone of JRRT's masterpiece?
Click to expand...

Remember, that phrase is subjective. What's "true to Tolkien" for one person might not be what's "true to Tolkien" for another. I thought PJ did a good job doing this in LOTR, but others don't feel the same way.

So I would say geordie's question is VERY important even for a non "purist". Sure if someone hasn't read the books or didn't like the books, pretty much all they will care about is whether or not they were done well as movies. But I would say it's just as important to fans of Tolkien that these movies are done well and remain "true to Tolkien" in their own vision. Of course the subjectivity of the phrase is why some fans liked PJ's LOTR and why others didn't like it.
 
This isn't directed at anyone in particular. But I just don't understand all of the people who are quick to jump to the conclusion that the 3 part movie is simply, and only, about being greedy for more money. Yes, I'm sure money is a reason they did it. But it's only ONE reason.

PJ probably did it because it's a win-win-win situation for everyone. WB get's more money from it. PJ gets to spend more time with these people he loves making more of what he loves, and probably telling the story better than he could with just 2 films. And if the movies are good that means we get to enjoy 3 great movies rather than just 2.

I just think it's a little biased and opinionated to say that it's all about money. I also think it's a little biased and opinionated to say that money had NOTHING to do with it and it was simply for love of the story.
 
But if you read what I said you'll see I agree with you. I think Peter Jackson wanted a third film because he felt that would make for the best adaptation. He's thinking of the story and what he wants to do with it. I don't think money comes into it from his side.

I do think Warner Brothers would have thought primarily of the money because they're a business, they're spending a lot on this and they need to earn a lot from it.

I don't see greed on either side - and I didn't say it was all about money. Because I don't think it is.
 
Lol, the point of my post was actually that I agree with you. That's my fault for not writing that. I was trying to help support your point
 
I do think Warner Brothers would have thought primarily of the money because they're a business, they're spending a lot on this and they need to earn a lot from it.

I don't see greed on either side - and I didn't say it was all about money. Because I don't think it is.
Click to expand...

And honestly, just because they want to make sure they are profiting from more cost doesn't mean that it's necessarily greedy. It's part of being fiscally responsible.

When the rumors about extra filming started I thought there would be no way they would make 3 movies. But then I looked at it from a money standpoint. PJ and WB probably already had EE in mind. So if PJ asks for extra shooting to add to the EE this puts on more cost for WB with out any extra benefit, as it would just go into the EE which they already planned. But a third movie would allow them to benefit from the cost.

And I don't think it was as simple as WB saying to PJ, "just make 3 films then." They probably had to make sure that he COULD make 3 good films. And if PJ, and/or WB felt that he would not be able to do this then they would have denied him the extra filming, because they would be running the risk of making bad movies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top