The Hype of the Rings

With the Fellowship of the Rings just around the corner, the Slashdot Submissions bin is overflowing with stories about the film since it premiered in the UK already for you lucky brits. If you don't mind a little spoilage, here is the guardian's review, the BBC review, the telegraph review, some pictures from the premiere, and one last review. Also, Scifi.com is reporting that the film has already been pirated. The reviews have their nitpicks, but on the whole its looking good. M : LOTR tattoos!

Comments

Devil's Advocate: The Purposes of the Crap

[d.valued]

(Lemme open up by saying I may or may not agree with what I am about to say. This sort of duplicity makes me an excellent candidate for political office.)

So far, I've seen the Burger King glasses, the action figures, a great many re-published copies of the book with the movie as the cover. I've seen the board game, the cartoon, the ten-minute TNT blip, the one-hour Sci-Fi blip. The bedsheets are on order at my local K-Mart, the costumes are being put on back-order, the card game is selling briskly, and the pornographic feature based upon the film is in high demand at the local adult bookstore.

All this stuff (with the possible exception of the porno) goes to help defray the insanely high intial costs of the trilogy. Keep in mind, for those of you who've been living in a cave since, oh, the last millenium, that they a) shot all three films at once and therefor WILL be released; b) they cost a LOT of money. If you think that $6000 for a Microsoft-proof laptop is a painful yet fun investment, think that the studio coughs up mega-million dollar budgets with shocking regularity. In fact, I'm torn on whether the casinos or Hollywood are the folks to duplicate for the handling of insanely large quantities of cash.

The crap has a double purpose. It gets people Movie Stuff, and simultaneously promotes the film.

Peter Jackson Interview

[DaoudaW]

I'll admit I was worried after reading stories like Feedback: Not the subtractions, but the additions about changes made to the story during the making of the film.

But after hearing last nights interview with Peter Jackson on World News for Public Television, my fears have been allayed. Jackson was asked what John Ronald Raoul would have thought about the movie. Peter said (approx.), "I hope he'd see the love we put into it over the years. But I think he'd be grumpy about many of the changes we had to make."

He seemed to have a deep understanding of Tolkien the man, and was quite aware that he'd meddled with literature that had been canonized. The seriousness with which he approached his task impressed me.

Re:what about the Hobbit?

[Marcus Brody]

Actually quite an insightful comment.

Why has the Hobbit been ignored for so long, whilst they are making LOTR for the second time?

In contrast to LOTR, the Hobbit is ideal film material. Its short, nice tight storyline, gripping throughout, doesnt lag anywhere, get tired or have dull spots and is a kids classic.

I dont see why they didnt make the Hobbit first as a primer/tester for the LOTR.

Re:$300 Million

[Squirrel Killer]

I doubt it. They probably expect to recover between a third and half the cost on the first movie (ie $100-150 million) then the mostof the rest of the up-front costs on the second movie, leaving the third movie to be mostly or pure profit. Merchandising dollars, which they've been for several months now with movie related books, etc..., help pad the bottom line.

Straight to video would waste the potential theatrical take, even if the first movie tanks, there's still enough die-hard Tolkien fans and pure fantasy fans for the second and third films to bring in enough revenue to cover the theatrical release and some money on the side. Hey, didn't even "Dungeons & Dragons" make money?

My guess would be that if the first film tanks, the second film would be released with the same production values (maybe not as much hype), but would be released to video much sooner. The third film would probably be rushed out the door with much lower production standards (worse special effects, cheaper soundtrack, no redubbing lines to cover on-location mistakes, certainly no more new photography (yes, I know they're done with principle shooting, but I could see them going back for more if need be)) and go to video quickly as well. That way, New Line will still get the theatrical take, but can start bringing in video revenue quickly to start making up the losses. Never the less, all three will be made and will make it into theaters.

Note that I don't expect the films to tank. I expect "Fellowship of the Ring" to do quite well, "Two Towers" to do a little less well, and "Return of the King" to do better than "Fellowship". I don't know if the theatrical take will reach $300 million, but I wouldn't be surprised. Even if it just breaks even in the theaters, New Line wins big with all of the merchadising and potential video revenues.

-sk

Funny, I just happened to read Tolkien's view on

[sphealey]

Funny, I just happened to re-read Tolkien's view on a movie version of LOTR last night. In a 1957 letter to his agent in response to an offer from an American studio, he basically said two things (a) he had no philosophical objection to movies and wouldn't mind if someone tried to create a screenplay/movie version (b) however, since he didn't trust Hollywood, his specific instructions were "either Art or Cash", meaning either full artistic control, or enough cash up front to drown his sorrows.

So I would say ol' JRR had pretty clear vision in these matters.

sPh