'The Battle of the Five Armies' in theatres | SPOILERS

So Bo5As, the final movie in Peter Jackson's epic Hobbit triology, his last venture into Middle Earth, will be the least financially successful movie of the triology?

That's quite telling for the impression these movies has made on people in general. It certainly tells you something about the impression the first two must have made.

I cant remember did DOS make more or less than AUJ?

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I cant remember did DOS make more or less than AUJ?

From memory AUJ did around 1.070 Billion, DOS did around 985 million at the box office, but factoring in the falling exchange rate of $, the hype over 48 FPS and Home Video sales I'd guess they were probably about even in the end.

So although this trilogy has been sucessful, it's not what I would have predicted four years ago (I remember on TORn people seriously thought BOTFA would beat Avengers at the Box Office...)

Thanks Malick I was curious if there was a slide downwards or if DOS gave a mid series bump as it was noticeably better received by critics than AUJ was.

Trying to get adjusted figures for international box office figures is incredibly difficult because you have to balance exchange rates for dozens of countries as well as inflation and differences in ticket prices. So most people and sites don't bother with it. But if you do want to take that stuff into account, the relative strength of the dollar right now is going to give BOFA a lower worldwide total than it might otherwise have received. (Box office results are almost always reported in dollars, probably because most of the major companies are American, and also because the dollar is so popular worldwide.)

malickfan wrote:So although this trilogy has been sucessful, it's not what I would have predicted four years ago (I remember on TORn people seriously thought BOTFA would beat Avengers at the Box Office...)

It wasn't just the hardcore fan bubble that thought that was within the realm of possibility. AUJ definitely underperformed expectations, though of course the fact that it still made a tidy bit of money goes to show how high expectations were for the follow-up to the LOTR trilogy (because of the phenomenon that turned out to be). I know that at the time I looked at Star Wars as an analogy, which had a longer break between the originals and the prequels than the one between LOTR and TH, and TPM actually grossed slightly more than TESB or ROTJ even after you adjust for inflation (in the US).

The analogy was imperfect to be sure, but not necessarily in ways that would hurt TH. Granted, the franchise was never on the same level as Star Wars (nothing so far has been), but LOTR earned a greater percentage of its growth overseas, which has expanded massively in the previous decade. The LOTR films got bigger with each release, and culminated in the most-loved installment for many people, whereas ROTJ was (by the late '90s, if not earlier) not as beloved as its predecessors* (though this might have been a chance of me extrapolating too much from fanboy arguments that aren't necessarily applicable to the tastes of the general public). But regardless, I thought there was a very strong chance that AUJ would at least be in the same ballpark as ROTK in terms of ticket sales, and that inflation/international growth/3D would take care of the rest. Remember, ROTK made $1.1 billion nine years before AUJ. Avengers made $1.5 billion less than nine months before. It wasn't a total pipe dream.

Of course, that's not what happened. I think the lack of novelty which is inherent in a lot of prequels played a role here. The Hobbit the book is not quite as popular or well-known as LOTR either, and the people who love The Hobbit the most are probably less likely to be interested in seeing an action blockbuster movie. Obviously LOTR the book is not an action blockbuster but it's closer to being one than TH is, and it has a ton of indirect fans through D&D and the like who were primed for the sort of movies PJ made. I think part of the reason the LOTR movies got bigger with each installment was their growing "event movie" status, where the sense of "you've got to see it to keep up with the conversation" grew each year. The nine year break meant this wasn't as much of a factor for TH, and the "been there, done that" attitude is gonna be a lot stronger with casual viewers than with established Tolkien and/or PJ fans.

Anyway, the films were still a success and I'm not trying to minimize that, but I do think it's interesting to look at the results and compare them to what we thought might happen before the first movie was released. I remember going to see it quite clearly, but in some ways it feels like a lot more than two years ago.


*In terms of box office, TESB, ROTJ, and TPM are all pretty close if you adjust for inflation and disregard re-releases (which the original trilogy has had a lot more of). However, none of them approach the original film, which was a singular phenomenon on the level of Jaws, ET, Titanic, and Avatar. A lot of people who would normally have no interest in space adventure movies went to see the original Star Wars and didn't come back for the sequels, but the portion that did was still large enough to make it the most successful movie franchise of all time by a huge margin.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Thanks Malick I was curious if there was a slide downwards or if DOS gave a mid series bump as it was noticeably better received by critics than AUJ was.

These days franchise movies are often more dependent on the reception of their predecessor than anything else. This is just a rule of thumb, but I think that the failure of AUJ to fully ignite is the main reason for DOS' decline. On the other hand, DOS was received better by a lot of the people who saw it, but that doesn't seem to have made a difference for most markets (with the exception of China, which is an unusual market due to government control of the supply of foreign movies). The supposed "final movie bump" also failed to materialize.

for me personally it was the total lack of freshness that turned eagerly awaited films into failures. If they had had a fresh vision, been creative, and not relied on LOTR for the look and feel, then they could have recreated a LOTR experience. The expectations were out there, they just weren't fulfilled. I think we expected something wonderful, something groundshifting like the first Avatar was, or the first Matrix, when you come out of a cinema going 'wow' I never saw those SFX or scenography before, or something similar, but we didn't we just got LOTR Lite with a bit more HD.

I'd put out some arguments against the specifics of what you're saying here Figg, but then it's already been said. So I might as well not.

well you might as well otherwise this thread is going to go cold.

To be honest Figgy I dont think I even got that. I cant think of a piece of these awful films that felt Middle Earth-ish ? oh yeah, only at Bag End. I couldnt connect or relate to Middle Earth. It was all so dire & ruined by the fook awful, cringe making effects & stupidity that it took away any feeling I should have had. The only feeling I felt apart from nausea was, when is this gonna end ? If everyone dropped dead I couldnt have cared more. Nothing was ever going to tally with LOTRs, it was all so out of sync. Legolass'ssssss lost love ? never even hinted at in LOTRs. No one would have EVER know that fresh faced BOY elf had ever had his heart strings tugged. You felt it & it was nodded at with Aragorn so why not at Leggy ? I still cant get the utter ridiculous sight of Galadriel doing her floating magic act with Gandalf out of my head ! its so cringe worthy ! omg !

yep. what they did to Galadriel was unforgivable.

I HATED Dol Guldur. I was so livid I almost had tears in my eyes. They had one chance to make Galadriel look awesome and they messed it up so much... whatever. I'll just watch the scene with Arwen calling on the river in FOTR. That was a much better example of elven badassery.

yeah me too. it was mindboggling, why on earth would they make Galadriel look so horrible. cant understand it.

They were working on the theory that badass Galadriel is Galadriel with the ring. But it's not: what we should have seen is goodass Galadriel in opposition to badass Galadriel.

a lady of light and flowers

Mrs Figg wrote:for me personally it was the total lack of freshness that turned eagerly awaited films into failures. If they had had a fresh vision, been creative, and not relied on LOTR for the look and feel, then they could have recreated a LOTR experience. The expectations were out there, they just weren't fulfilled. I think we expected something wonderful, something groundshifting like the first Avatar was, or the first Matrix, when you come out of a cinema going 'wow' I never saw those SFX or scenography before, or something similar, but we didn't we just got LOTR Lite with a bit more HD.

Alright then!
I think that if the expectations of the fanbase really were that we would get something noticeably different visually or technically from what has come before (as Avatar was different visually and technically) then what Jackson was working towards with his HFR 3D presentation actually does line up with viewer expectations.
Personally, I was hoping for something visually and technically similar to LotR told in a linear fashion that followed a single story-thread. I also expected that the contributions of Del Toro would lead to some variations in creatures from those we saw in LotR.
So you see that my expectations did not lean entirely toward the anticipation of something entirely "new" stylistically or technically.

I had a knee-jerk poor reaction to this idea that "what the audiences wanted" was something "brand new" or having a "wow" factor stemming from novelty. I love the idea of a amazement in reaction to well-crafted cinema. That I can get behind. But this idea that The Hobbit needed to be technically revolutionary for me to enjoy it: I just don't see the rest of the Tolkien or Jackson fans out there agreeing!

Here to help!
Revive.
Discussion.

okey dokey.
I did actually expect something novel in the visual presentation. I expected something tonally different to LOTR and kinda on the lines of the film Legend. I did not expect him to rehash LOTR. at all. I expected something like Legend x 10, full of faerie to bursting point. he really could have made something spectacular but not in a Michael Bay way. really I imagined the Withywindle feel, if you get my drift?, that atmosphere of magic and weirdness, well, faerie, is how I am trying to explain it, small scale, intimate, odd creatures, motes of thistledown, Bilbo sighing and muttering, grumpy Dwarves with coloured hoods, proper fairytale stuff, think Grimms, forests of the night, etc etc....not what we got.

I expected something that felt like the book.

Mrs Figg wrote:okey dokey.
I did actually expect something novel in the visual presentation. I expected something tonally different to LOTR and kinda on the lines of the film Legend. I did not expect him to rehash LOTR. at all. I expected something like Legend x 10, full of faerie to bursting point. he really could have made something spectacular but not in a Michael Bay way. really I imagined the Withywindle feel, if you get my drift?, that atmosphere of magic and weirdness, well, faerie, is how I am trying to explain it, small scale, intimate, odd creatures, motes of thistledown, Bilbo sighing and muttering, grumpy Dwarves with coloured hoods, proper fairytale stuff, think Grimms, forests of the night, etc etc....not what we got.

Well sure I see where you're going with that. I don't really associate Del Toro with those themes though (apart from parts of Pan's Labyrinth for example), and Jackson very little or not at all. He doesn't like that sort of thing, I don't think.

You and I both liked a lot of LotR, so it seems rather blase to claim that the root of our discontent lies in the fact that Jackson basically remade the LotR films. The Hobbit films are not the same as the Lord of the Rings films. The Hobbit films are a rip-off of some of the themes found in LotR smeared over with an ugly patina of cgi-saturation. Some fans of the Hobbit films claim that that cgi-patina is a technically amazing format and does count as a Matrix or Avatar type experience.

Forest Shepherd wrote:

Mrs Figg wrote:okey dokey.
I did actually expect something novel in the visual presentation. I expected something tonally different to LOTR and kinda on the lines of the film Legend. I did not expect him to rehash LOTR. at all. I expected something like Legend x 10, full of faerie to bursting point. he really could have made something spectacular but not in a Michael Bay way. really I imagined the Withywindle feel, if you get my drift?, that atmosphere of magic and weirdness, well, faerie, is how I am trying to explain it, small scale, intimate, odd creatures, motes of thistledown, Bilbo sighing and muttering, grumpy Dwarves with coloured hoods, proper fairytale stuff, think Grimms, forests of the night, etc etc....not what we got.

Well sure I see where you're going with that. I don't really associate Del Toro with those themes though (apart from parts of Pan's Labyrinth for example), and Jackson very little or not at all. He doesn't like that sort of thing, I don't think.

You and I both liked a lot of LotR, so it seems rather blase to claim that the root of our discontent lies in the fact that Jackson basically remade the LotR films. The Hobbit films are not the same as the Lord of the Rings films. The Hobbit films are a rip-off of some of the themes found in LotR smeared over with an ugly patina of cgi-saturation. Some fans of the Hobbit films claim that that cgi-patina is a technically amazing format and does count as a Matrix or Avatar type experience.

from what I have seen DT is as stuck in a rut as PJ. I don't think he could have given us anything better to be honest. I liked Pans Labyrinth, but all his films have the same kind of look, and this new one he has out soon called Scarlet something, forget the name, doesn't give me much confidence. You are right about the LOTR rip-off, theres nothing new or fresh in TH. its all bilge.

TH has a totally different mood and tone for the bulk of the book. And thats what I wanted to see. It should have been a childrens film- thats doesn't mean silly or stupid however, just the tone should have been more faery.
If you look at the book whilst its clearly aimed at children Tolkien nevertheless keeps it very grounded, he is at pains to show us the discomfort of teh journey, the shitty weather, how miserable they all get at certain points from nothing more than the hardship of the journey.
So the world as presented could be just as solid, just as real as in LOtR's- filling the film with cgi therefore goes against the tone of the book. The look of the films is too detached from the world of LotR's.
But the world is not different in the books, not less real, its just the story being told within it has a different tone.

I think they made two major mistakes from the get go.

First, they lost Bilbos perspective. Yes, it's still there in parts. But for the most part the movie is more concerned with the story from the perspective of other characters. Failing to realize that seeing things through Bilbos eyes gives us a grounding. The story a wholeness.

Secondly, they missed the theme of the book. Unheroic charcters, reaching redemption through heroic deeds. They made them heroic from the get go. Thorin became the heroic exile king wanting to reclaim his homeland for instance. Bilbo a hero, saving the dwarves as early as the trollshaws and concurrently throughout the story.

I think they simply failed to get the work they were adapting and as such paid it little mind or care.

TH is obviously Hobbit based therefore it should be small scale and detailed, its not an epic Romance. LOTR could (as a film) never be Hobbit based, its too big a story, but this was the opportunity to really give us things from Bilbos perspective. I dunno if it would have worked, but they could have filmed it from his viewpoint, so we experience things as he does. Not all the time otherwise it would have felt claustrophobic, but in certain moments, like when he pushes up through the forest canopy to see the butterflies, or in the trees on fire, and holding on to the legs of the Eagle, stuff like that, so we feel his awe or fear.

Blue- Id agree with that assessment. The whole approach to the character of Bilbo is wrong for me form the get go.
From the moment he chooses to go on an adventure rather than Gandalf shoving him literally into one itss all wrong for the character.
He should be terrified at the trollshaws not cracking wise cracks at them and taking charge. Its way too soon for the character development, half a book too soon.
And by doing this they remove Bilbo from the audience,we should be in his shoes- shoved out on an adventure and experiencing the scares, the terror and the triumphs with him and going on is journey form unwilling participant to defacto leader of the group.

But thats all gone- instead we get a proactive Bilbo, choosing to go, facing down trolls, fighting goblins, killing wargs and saving Thorin's life all before the end credits of the first film. Its an awful misrepresentation of both the character and the development of the character which distances the audiences from the tale and the character.