Hobbit delayed by a year?

[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"?