Hobbit delayed by a year?

[Sauron the White]

I suspect that in the end, HOBBIT will be a bit more serious than some here would like.... it will be a bit more action oriented than some here would like ... it will have far less of the peculiar JRRT humor than some here would like ... and it will be devoid of the many songs that so many here would like.

And I suspect that it will look far too much like a LOTR film - Middle-Earth Part IV (or I) than many here will like.

And it will make scads of money, be very well recieved by the general public and set up the other move quite nicely thank you.

Trends - be they fantasy films or any other - do not apply here. What does apply is that the LOTR films were a huge success by almost any scale of measurement and most of that public is still around ready to purchase yet again. In fact, it is well that no other big fantasy film has stolen the spotlight from Middle-earth making the hunger for it only sharper over the intervening years.

We will get Ian McKellan as Gandalf again. We will get Gollum again. We get hobbits and dwarves and elves and all will be right with the world as long as that world contains the Shire and Rivendell and a few other spots. If it has enough to be familiar and make people feel confortable, then that is all that is needed.

Jackson as producer will give it enough continuinity to make it acceptable to the film fans who identify him with the franchise. And franchise it is. Del Toro brings his own street cred and abilities and it will give the film enough of a new look to avoid sequelitis.

Have faith.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

And it will make scads of money, be very well recieved by the general public and set up the other move quite nicely thank you.

I seem to recall some exec at Disney saying much the same re Prince Caspian.....& at New Line re Golden Compass.

Personally, I'm gonna wait & see....

[Sauron the White]

from davem

I seem to recall some exec at Disney saying much the same re Prince Caspian.....& at New Line re Golden Compass.

Of course executives are always going to trumpet their next releases in that fashion. The big difference however is that both the Narnia series and Compass had no cinematic track record to base anything on like the LOTR films give us in speculating about HOBBIT.

To this day I think one of the reasons CASPIAN had lesser monies than the first in the series is that the first NARNIA movie cashed in on positive LOTR fever. A portion of those people who bought tickets left the theater unsatisfied and did not go back for CASPIAN - even though many said it was a better and more adult film.

Obviously, anything can still happen. But if I could buy stock in the two Middle-earth films, I would gladly do so. Its as close to a sure thing as there is in the business of expensive film making.

[davem]

The TH movie (& sequel) will be as successful as it is close to the LotR movies - which will mean being quite far from the original book - & that's what I've been arguing for a good while. Almost no-one seems to want to see Tolkien's original story on screen - what they want is 'another LotR movie' & would thus prefer to see the proposed second movie,which will include many of the LotR characters, than Tolkien's story, which will not.

To this day I think one of the reasons CASPIAN had lesser monies than the first in the series is that the first NARNIA movie cashed in on positive LOTR fever. A portion of those people who bought tickets left the theater unsatisfied and did not go back for CASPIAN - even though many said it was a better and more adult film.

My feeling is that LWW was successful because it created (or recreated from the book) a fairytale world, & that the sequel (leaving aside its dubious morality - children killing without qualm or adverse psychological effect) was standard fantasy fare with little connection to the original story. A TH movie will suffer far more from that problem than the proposed sequel will.

EDIT http://www.startribune.com/entertain...D3aPc:_Yyc:aUU

Moviegoers have become accustomed to the "no animals were harmed" disclaimer at the end of movies. Now comes one for a new age: "The depictions of tobacco smoking contained in this film are based solely on artistic consideration and are not intended to promote tobacco consumption." Warner Bros. also adds, at the end of "Gran Torino," among other films, that no tobacco companies paid for product placement*.

I think Bilbo's pipe will probably just go...

(*What next - "The depictions of killing contained in this film are based solely on artistic consideration and are not intended to promote shooting people. No gun manufacturers paid for product placement"?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

I think Bilbo's pipe will probably just go...

(*What next - "The depictions of killing contained in this film are based solely on artistic consideration and are not intended to promote shooting people. No gun manufacturers paid for product placement"?

I think you are forgetting just how influential the tobacco industry was in getting Hollywood movies--and Ronald Regan--to promote cigarettes. And as a European, you are probably also overlooking American views of art, drama, tv, movies and the imagination. They are mired in a realism--and a legal industry--that for Europeans would be laughable.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I think you are forgetting just how influential the tobacco industry was in getting Hollywood movies--and Ronald Regan--to promote cigarettes.

Meh...I just watched 'The Big Sleep' with Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. It seemed to me the various characters smoked more in that one movie (made in 1946) than in all movies made since 1980. Okay, I'm exaggerating, but as a smoker, even I was appalled at the amount of times Bogie and Bacall lit up -- a far cry from any movie in the past several decades. Honestly, I can't recall smoking so pronounced in any film within recent memory (save perhaps Lord of the Rings).

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

And as a European, you are probably also overlooking American views of art, drama, tv, movies and the imagination. They are mired in a realism--and a legal industry--that for Europeans would be laughable.

Just what is the American views of art, drama, tv, movies and the imagination? Being an American, I am curious as to just what my opinions are. I am sure a European can explain myself to me.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Just what is the American views of art, drama, tv, movies and the imagination? Being an American, I am curious as to just what my opinions are. I am sure a European can explain myself to me.

I should point out that Bethberry is actually from North North America - & very proud of it.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Meh...I just watched 'The Big Sleep' with Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. It seemed to me the various characters smoked more in that one movie (made in 1946) than in all movies made since 1980. Okay, I'm exaggerating, but as a smoker, even I was appalled at the amount of times Bogie and Bacall lit up -- a far cry from any movie in the past several decades. Honestly, I can't recall smoking so pronounced in any film within recent memory (save perhaps Lord of the Rings).

Never seen it but given it's Bogey and Bacall, you've got me predicting just what activities preceded the smoking. Which has nothing to do with smoking in LotR of course.

:

Just what is the American views of art, drama, tv, movies and the imagination? Being an American, I am curious as to just what my opinions are. I am sure a European can explain myself to me.

davem has of course stepped into the breech and freed me of any need to reply, so I won't. Except to say . . .

You've got me there. I could hardly explain just what the American views of etc would be, a One Ring America so to speak. I was referring merely to American views without the definite article, of which there can be several--a sort of Three Ring circus if you will--some of which obviously can be your own, which I would not endeavour to explain to yourself as I have not explained them to myself, being as yet unaware of them, never having yet discussed American films with you.

I do recall, however, a litigitious American court case in which a manufacturer of ladders was found negligent for having, despite umpteen signs and stickers on its products relating to the safe use of said products, failed to post a sticker advising new owners not to place said product in a pile of animal manure and then climb upon it, as under the heat of the sun the footing could be warmed, causing the ladder to become unstable, leading the Litigator, who had fallen into the pile under just such a warming influence, to initiate and win said court case against the Litigatee. The business end of Hollywood is undoubtedly very aware of such a victory and is, I would suggest, covering itself with such disclaimers. From my perspective, European movies are not produced in such a barnyard.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Have faith.

Wasn't it Bertrand Russell who suggested that people resort to faith only when logic or evidence fails?

Frankly, I'll reserve my faith for a more reliable object, as I'm not sure what recompense PJ can offer me or what awakening would be possible from his works.