Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

Posted: **Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:39 pm**

Well, obviously that's not what I meant. I just meant in regards to the actual novels that Tolkien wrote (the stuff pertaining to the One Ring), not original material. The Silmarillion would not work as a movie (I don't even think it would work as a TV miniseries, but that's just me) and neither would Unfinished Tales. I think that once the two prequel films are released, they should be done with Middle-Earth.

But I think the second film could be very interesting if they don't start making stuff up, but instead pull things from the appendices and events alluded to in the text of the novels. There's plenty of material to tap into in that regard, and remember that Peter Jackson and Co. did a very good job at seamlessly integrating appendix material into the LOTR films (the bulk of Saruman's story, the Aragorn/Arwen romance, etc.). Even if they do happen to split The Hobbit into two films, you can rest assured that it won't be a straigt-up adaptation, but a complex film of epic scope complimented with material that wasn't featured within the text of the book, but from the appendices and the LOTR novels (and possibly even Tolkien's notes).

Anyway, maybe we should move this debate to "The Hobbit is finally happening!" thread.

Posted: **Thu Sep 18, 2008 11:46 am**

They would have to get permission from the Tolkien estate and if Christopher Tolkien can create rather unimaginative recreations of his fathers work from notes without carrying the same style of writing, then I could see them fucking up the future of Middle Earth. However, I don't think they'll do it.

Posted: **Thu Sep 18, 2008 11:41 am**

MovieWes wrote:I understand, but that tactic actually worked to the advantage of the LOTR films, so I'm not too worried either way considering that, well, they're LOTR films. Any other franchise would concern me, but not this one. In fact, it makes me happy to know there will be two more films instead of just one. The more, the merrier!

so do you think they should go into franchise mode with tolkein's stories? like james bond for a new generation, where every few years there is a new film set in middle earth telling stories tolkein never intended.

i am not being bitchy in my question. i genuinely wonder if warner bros might take that route. they are just so greedy. i guess if they brought in the right directors, they could find lots of material from tolkein's thick mythology. we could have prequels, sequels, and spin-offs for decades. then after enough generations had passed and there were people who consider the peter jackson films to old, they could just remake the whole series and start all over. ???

Posted: **Thu Sep 18, 2008 2:55 am**

My God...it makes you realise just how extraordinary Titanic's box office run was. Could you imagine a film making 900 million at the North American box office these days?

Posted: **Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:14 pm**

I understand, but that tactic actually worked to the advantage of the LOTR films, so I'm not too worried either way considering that, well, they're LOTR films. Any other franchise would concern me, but not this one. In fact, it makes me happy to know there will be two more films instead of just one. The more, the merrier!

Posted: **Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:57 am**

MovieWes wrote:Well, the sequel to The Hobbit is less about greed and more about bridging the gap between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings trilogy. The Hobbit is going to be one film and the second film is going to be something entirely different.

i know i should probably not be so outraged about the tolkein movies. if THE HOBBIT is the first movie and the second movie is truly a totally different story (which is possible since tolkein created a rich mythology to work from), then we have no reason to be outraged. i just do not like the way movie franchises refuse to make stand alone sequels. it was started by the sequels to BACK TO THE FUTURE. the second one was bad enough, but then to lead directly into the third one as a "to be continued" was just stupid.

the same thing with the matrix and pirate sequels. instead of telling a great stand alone sequel which furthured the mythology of the original stories (like ALIENS and TERMINATOR 2 did), they created a gimmicky "two-parter" movie. that shit is annoying.

Posted: **Thu Sep 11, 2008 3:03 pm**

rolotomasi99 wrote:moving THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE back to next year to help their financial performance in 2009, splitting THE DEATHLY HOLLOWS into two films, and splitting THE HOBBIT in to two movies (which i will only hate if they title the second film THE HOBBIT 2 as opposed to MIDDLE EARTH or something else less gimicky). plus, of course, there is their past sin of releasing the two matrix sequels.

Well, the sequel to The Hobbit is less about greed and more about bridging the gap between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings trilogy. The Hobbit is going to be one film and the second film is going to be something entirely different. I actually place my full confidence in Peter Jackson and Co. because they've proven time and again that they're dedicated to excellence first and foremost. Hiring Guillermo del Toro (who, btw, has yet to direct a major box-office hit) as opposed to a generic run-of-the-mill director like Brett Ratner (like Fox and Universal did with the X-Men and Hannibal Lecter films, respectively) shows their dedication to respecting quality over profits.

I do agree with you on the others, however, even though sequels to The Matrix were pretty much inevitable.

Posted: **Thu Sep 11, 2008 1:44 pm**

I agree with you, MovieWes, but the problem is the media and Hollywood don't see it like that. They don't take inflation numbers into account because they want it to seem like their profits are soaring higher and higher making record-breaking the be-all-end-all of box office importance.

And that's what most of us take issue with.

Posted: **Thu Sep 11, 2008 12:41 pm**

Well, here's a list of the highest grossing films of all-time (adjusted for inflation), which disregards re-releases. Kind of interesting.

1. Gone with the Wind - $1,416,000,000 **
2. Star Wars - $1,010,556,800 *
3. The Sound of Music - $1,008,300,900 **
4. The Ten Commandments - $927,480,000 *
5. Titanic - $906,798,000 **
6. Jaws - $906,798,000 *
7. E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial - $880,319,000 *
8. Doctor Zhivago - $878,879,000 *
9. The Exorcist - $730,716,600 *
10. Ben-Hur - $693,840,000 **
11. The Sting - $631,131,400 **
12. Jurassic Park - $610,337,400 +
13. The Graduate - $605,445,500 *
14. The Phantom Menace - $600,566,700
15. Return of the Jedi - $573,362,400 +
16. The Empire Strikes Back - $558,344,600 +
17. The Godfather - $556,816,700 **
18. Forrest Gump - $556,102,900 **
19. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs - $548,495,600 +
20. Raiders of the Lost Ark - $546,853,000 *
21. Thunderball - $529,584,000 +
22. Fantasia - $529,152,400 + (Honorary)
23. The Lion King - $528,340,600 +
24. The Dark Knight - $512,829,000
25. Shrek 2 - $503,040,600
26. Grease - $501,716,900
27. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid - $499,549,600 *
28. Love Story - $495,586,900 *
29. Spider-Man - $491,952,000
30. Independence Day - $490,423,600 +
31. Sleeping Beauty - $485,691,800
32. Ghostbusters - $482,047,400
33. Home Alone - $479,558,100
34. Cleopatra - $475,658,900 *
35. Beverly Hills Cop - $475,422,100

** denotes film won Best Picture
* denotes film was nominated for Best Picture
+ denotes film won in tech categories only

The Dark Knight won't ever reach Titanic on this list, regardless of how many times they re-release it.

Edited By MovieWes on 1221156267

Posted: **Thu Sep 11, 2008 11:52 am**

OscarGuy wrote:And the sad part is, Titanic might still maintain its record. Everyone's already seen it. Why would a re-release so soon after garner $50+ M in sales?

But, it does show how sad and pathetic Warner Bros. is. Titanic didn't re-release itself to increase its tally, it just sailed effortlessly to the mark. I think they should re-release Titanic to coincide with the Dark Knight re-release.

i fucking hate warner bros!!!!!!

moving THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE back to next year to help their financial performance in 2009, splitting THE DEATHLY HOLLOWS into two films, and splitting THE HOBBIT in to two movies (which i will only hate if they title the second film THE HOBBIT 2 as opposed to MIDDLE EARTH or something else less gimicky). plus, of course, there is their past sin of releasing the two matrix sequels.

lionsgate used to be the studio i hated the most because of all their torture porn films and of course stealing BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN's oscar; but i think warner bros recent greedy little bullshit moves have won them the award of worst studio.

releasing THE DEPARTED and GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK does not absolve them of their sins.

Posted: **Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:36 am**

And the sad part is, Titanic might still maintain its record. Everyone's already seen it. Why would a re-release so soon after garner $50+ M in sales?

But, it does show how sad and pathetic Warner Bros. is. Titanic didn't re-release itself to increase its tally, it just sailed effortlessly to the mark. I think they should re-release Titanic to coincide with the Dark Knight re-release.

Posted: **Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:31 am**

Zahveed wrote:I don't think they care if it gets nominated or not. If you re-release it, they will come... and beat Titanic's box office record. It's a ploy I tell you, a ploy!

Of course it is. Otherwise they would just plan a major DVD release or send out screeners. They are just using the Oscars as an excuse to increase the box office take in the hopes of beating Titanic's record.

Posted: **Thu Sep 11, 2008 8:57 am**

It's shameless. It's like Mel Gibson's Braveheart.

Posted: **Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:59 am**

I don't think they care if it gets nominated or not. If you re-release it, they will come... and beat Titanic's box office record. It's a ploy I tell you, a ploy!

Posted: **Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:26 am**

Ha! Blatant Oscar-sucking!