Hobbit delayed by a year?

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by davem

Its how much it changes. Let's face it, if TH had been written by Prof. ABC Bloggs it would have no hope of being made into a movie - for the reasons I've already given, plus, its a children's fantasy book & children's fantasy is box office death. The only reason its being made is because its connected to LotR. However, its for that very reason that changes are inevitable - because what the audience, & hence the studio, want is another LotR movie.

I disagree a bit. While TH is a children's story, the studio doesn't have to make plot changes or invent scenes for the film to appeal to older audiences. The action and scary scenes, which Tolkien glossed over, give it potential to be a rather good PG or PG-13 film. Just imagine the lair of Azog, or Beorn's rampage in the Battle of Five Armies, or the spiders of Mirkwood recreated a la Peter Jackson and WETA.

I, for one, look forward to seeing the scene with the three cockney trolls.

[Sauron the White]

Once you accept the fact that one medium - a film - is not another medium - a book - its all an individual judgment that means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Will the public embrace it through the purchasing of tickets? That is the only question that gets a film made.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Once you accept the fact that one medium - a film - is not another medium - a book - its all an individual judgment that means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Will the public embrace it through the purchasing of tickets? That is the only question that gets a film made.

Yes, I agree - & to avoid getting into the old discussion again I think we can take that as read. My point here is that, because I agree, I reckon the studio would rather see the proposed 'sequel' to TH put out than a movie of TH. Maybe no TH movie, or maybe the 'sequel', with the White Council, Aragorn, Arwen, Legolas (Boromir & Faramir???) - which is what LotR movie fans want, apparently- first, & then the TH movie (possibly where the speculation that TH would be put back for a year comes from?? - release the one fans want first & leave the other one till later - rather than risk the franchise by putting out the less popular one first).

[skip spence]

I disagree that a faithful adaptation would do poorly in the box officee. A fairly faithful adaptation mind you: I don't expect to see the Goblins sing and dance to a show tune in the middle of a chase. The Hobbit's storyline is imo a better fit for the big screen than LotR, with plenty of scenes that would be great straight from the book. It's an adventure-story with plenty of action and thrills, but also lots of humour. Andsigil mentioned the cockney trolls who are hilarious but hopefully pretty scary too. There is also plenty of Dwarf comedy, and this time no-one can complain it isn't in the book in the first place. Can't wait for all the Bombur fat-jokes.

Sure there are drawback to a faithful adaptation. No love-affairs, few female characters, and few familiar LotR faces. Gollum and Gandalf is in of course, and they are enough I'd say, although I expect to see cameos from Legolas, Aragorn and Arwen too.

But there are drawbacks to a very loose adaptation too. The Hobbit is a famous book, and if critics perceive that the film-makers have taken too many liberties with it, the reviews might suffer as a result, and poor reviews could definitely hurt financially. But it's all a matter of perspective I suppose. I believe that LotR is regarded as a faithful adaptation of the book by the majority, an opinion not shared by most on this board.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

From Skip comment above:

few female characters

You want "thought provoking", since PJ's involved, how about
their making some of the dwarves female?

On a less scary, but pushing the envelope, how about
having Tom Bombadil and Goldberry saving them from
the trolls?

I believe that LotR is regarded as a faithful adaptation of the book by the majority, an opinion not shared by most on this board.

My view is that FOTR was pretty faithful (I even generally liked the
decision to have Zena Arwen (although poor Glorfindel missed his one
big scene ) But TTT and ROTk
In TH might they bring in Galadriel to share Elrond's scene and perhaps
have KB to some general voice over throughout the movie?

[davem]

Another take here http://www.joblo.com/cmon-hollywood-189

But the real question is what does this mean for the next Narnia film and THE HOBBIT? I think Narnia will get picked up by another studio and I think the next film will make even less than PRINCE CASPIAN. The Christian audience that Disney was banking on didn’t show up in droves like they were expecting and there’s no reason to expect they’ll show up for the sequel. As for THE HOBBIT…I have no idea. Personally, I’m not looking forward to it, but you (the fanboys/Schmoes) will ultimately decide its fate.

Interesting point that - & gives the lie to the idea that it was the boycott organised by the churches that did for Golden Compass - the 'Christian' fantasy fared no better than the 'athiestic' fantasy, & both franchises seem to have reached their end. Nope - it seems that its fantasy per se which is out of favour, whatever its philosophical underpinnings. Now, as to the TH movie & sequel, it looks like it will stand or fall by its link to the LotR movies - it will not, by the looks of things be attractive in its own right as a 'fantasy' film, because fantasy films are no longer what audiences want. Mr U has pointed up some fantasy movies in the pipeline http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpos...&postcount=215

There are still fantasy projects being developed. I can think of two big script sales within the past six months or so -- Galahad and Round Table -- and there are projects like Clash of the Titans and a Dragonheart sequel that are moving down the tracks. They're still trying to reboot Conan, and I've seen a pilot script for a cable series version of George R.R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series. I think what's feeling the squeeze are these megabudget tentpole fantasy films.

Now, they (& the Elfstones of Shannara movie, which is currently being put together) could all be brilliant, & revive the genre - or they could all be terrible, & turn off the average movie goer still further from fantasy. My sense is that Warner will try & avoid selling TH as a 'fantasy movie' & go for 'prequel to LotR' - so, they will want cameos (& probably much more) from as many LotR characters as possible. They will also want to get some female characters in there - & finally, as I said, they will want the first movie to be popular enough to get the audiences back in for the sequel.

TH is being looked at to do the same business as each of the LotR movies - as with Prince Caspian a moderate, or even a 'decent' profit will not be enough to guarantee the second movie being released - even if they complete principal photography on it the cost of completing it, adding the effects, music, all the post-production stuff, not to mention the marketing/publicity, will make them think twice if TH doesn't blow the Box Office apart. Let's face it, when the battle was begun to get TH made, when the go ahead was given & things began to get underway, fantasy was the genre to be involved in & TH was the Jewel in the Crown. Now it looks like fantasy is about as popular as the Western - & how many studios would be looking to put up $200+ million on a cowboy pic at the moment?

[Bêthberry]

This dirge for the fantasy film genre overlooks the success of Pan's Laybrinth.

[davem]

Yes, but....Pan's Labyrinth cost $19m & has grossed $83,258,226 to date.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/...slabyrinth.htm

Good return, but not on the LotR scale, or what would be expected of TH. If TH could be done on the same scale, with the same budget & if the same profit was acceptable to the studios it would be a different matter. However, I suspect that Warner would like to see something along the lines of RotK http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/...noftheking.htm

a $94m budget producing a $1,119,110,941 gross ...