|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Jul 21, 2016 18:30:31 GMT -5
And let's not get started about the Hobbit "trilogy" That should've only been 2 movies, at most. While Guillermo del Toro was attached to direct (and even for a while after Jackson took over), it was. At first the third movie was going to be semi-original and bridge the 60 years between the second Hobbit movie and Fellowship of the Ring, but budget constraints led them to scrap that idea and go with what we ended up with, since MGM were adamant on it being a trilogy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2016 21:43:21 GMT -5
I was super disappointed in the books and the movies were even worse. There was no need to break the last book into two movies. Ugh.
It's a shame, because I do like some of the actors in the movies. I also felt the book's premise had potential.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2016 21:46:08 GMT -5
And let's not get started about the Hobbit "trilogy" That should've only been 2 movies, at most. Even two's a stretch, the Hobbit book is pretty thin on plot honestly. |
|
Crimson
Hank Scorpio
Thank you DWade
Posts: 6,511
|
Post by Crimson on Jul 21, 2016 21:48:34 GMT -5
That should've only been 2 movies, at most. Even two's a stretch, the Hobbit book is pretty thin on plot honestly. To the point where the actual Battle of Five Armies takes up like half a chapter at most. |
|
JoDaNa1281
Crow T. Robot
Jackie Daytona, Regular Human Bartender. #BLM
Posts: 41,024
|
Post by JoDaNa1281 on Jul 21, 2016 22:59:29 GMT -5
Even two's a stretch, the Hobbit book is pretty thin on plot honestly. To the point where the actual Battle of Five Armies takes up like half a chapter at most. The Battle of the Five Pages  |
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jul 22, 2016 11:13:04 GMT -5
A lot of these YA adaptations are thin on plot to begin with, and when they are stretched into four/five etc...movie series, they are exposed
The Hunger Games could have been done in two books, Twilight should have ended with Victoria's death in the third book.
This series will join Percy Jackson, and The Chronicles of Narnia as attempted movie franchises that just didn't work.
The Maze Runner took a better approach. Three movies, a relatively modest budget, and profitable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ryushinku on Jul 22, 2016 11:39:48 GMT -5
Oooof. That's a failure and a half, there. Embarrassing for the studio to have to do this, you'd figure they might just take the (added) hit in the wallet to finish it as a film series at least for the sake of appearances, but nope. Only $66 million domestic (where studios take most of the profits), so if the budget was $110, then it was a huge flop. The story just seemed like it was written in a board room where they broke down the Hunger Games into bullet points to try to replicate it. Well yeah I was doing the quick and dirty by just looking at the total box office. because going in to how global studio takes, and domestic studio takes (since studios make most of their money from the opening weekend box office and significantly less every following week) makes the issue pretty dang confusing The really basic rule of thumb these days is a film needs to double its budget. It does get a lot more complex than that (suffice to say, domestic gross for a US film offers a markedly bigger return than, say, money from the Chinese box office for instance) but, generally, double the budget. So the last film was way under the break even point, which leaves it relying on licensing deals and home video release money. Even with that it'll likely be a small return even at best, so that's not what the studio would've wanted. Even then...can't think of something like this happening to a franchise before, such a big vote of no confidence really. We've had stuff like no Amazing Spider-Man 3, for one, but this was a set story and series and half of the finale is basically being yanked out of the cinemas. |
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Jul 22, 2016 11:44:59 GMT -5
Oooof. That's a failure and a half, there. Embarrassing for the studio to have to do this, you'd figure they might just take the (added) hit in the wallet to finish it as a film series at least for the sake of appearances, but nope. Well yeah I was doing the quick and dirty by just looking at the total box office. because going in to how global studio takes, and domestic studio takes (since studios make most of their money from the opening weekend box office and significantly less every following week) makes the issue pretty dang confusing The really basic rule of thumb these days is a film needs to double its budget. It does get a lot more complex than that (suffice to say, domestic gross for a US film offers a markedly bigger return than, say, money from the Chinese box office for instance) but, generally, double the budget. So the last film was way under the break even point, which leaves it relying on licensing deals and home video release money. Even with that it'll likely be a small return even at best, so that's not what the studio would've wanted. that's what I meant with this bit. |
|
