The Desolation of Smaug

jax_rox said:
So you also apparently don't understand how this works either.

Theaters will see ~20% of that.
Click to expand...

Actually it's a sliding scale in most cases with your 20% being the theater cut the first week for a big picture like this and ending up at around 45 - 50% the following weeks.

http://themovieblog.com/2007/econom...e-the-money-goes-and-why-it-costs-us-so-much/

So let's strike a happy medium of say 33% average for the first 3 weeks with the "studio" getting 67%.

Thats only $400m.

- $255m "budget"

= $145 million less P&A which 80% of filmmakers have no clue what that even means.

So yeah... I love how you come after me like I don't know anything. Makes me feel good about myself knowing you care ;)

And since I know you won't read the link and instead will just spew more jibberish at me, here you go:

"Now, as you move into the second and third weeks of release, the percentage starts to swing to anywhere from 45% – 55% that the theatre gets to keep. It gets better after the fourth week when theatres generally can keep up to 80% or better of the ticket sales. "

And you might want to read Louise Levinson's book while you are at it: http://www.moviemoney.com/



And more...

"But after a bunch of theater chains declared bankruptcy in the early 2000s, these frontloaded deals started to fall out of fashion, says Doug Stone with BoxOfficeAnalyst.com.

Nowadays, with many of the bigger Hollywood blockbusters, the theater chains just get a standard cut of the whole revenue, regardless of which weekend it comes in.

You can actually look at the securities filings for the big theater chains, to look at how much of their ticket revenues go back to the studios, points out Stone. So for example, the latest quarterly filing by Cinemark Holdings, shows that 54.5 percent of its ticket revenues went to the distributors. So as a ballpark figure, studios generally take in around 50-55 percent of U.S. box office money."

http://io9.com/5747305/how-much-money-does-a-movie-need-to-make-to-be-profitable

Man, the more I look Jax, the more I realize you don't know what you are talking about ;)

AND considering that 2/3 of the BO money for Smaug came from overseas, it's interesting to note that the studios get worse cuts that way as well...

"According to the book The Hollywood Economist by Edward Jay Epstein, studios take in about 40 percent of the revenue from overseas release — and after expenses, they're lucky if they take in 15 percent of that number."
 
Last edited:
He is a wonderful actor and really portrays Bilbo well. I'm glad they found someone of his caliber to play the part.

Another great moment of humor was with Bombur during the barrel chase sequence, finishing with his arms and legs sticking out of the barrel and spinning around attacking - hilarious. There's also a funny moment where Bombur outruns the other Dwarves as they rush towards Beorn's house.
 
That whole barrel rolling scene was fun and one of the only things that engaged me. Of course a barrel bouncing that many times would not hold up for the final "spin". Another example of PJ taking things too far and not leaving well enough alone.
 
PhantomScreenwriter said:
Another great moment of humor was with Bombur during the barrel chase sequence, finishing with his arms and legs sticking out of the barrel and spinning around attacking - hilarious. There's also a funny moment where Bombur outruns the other Dwarves as they rush towards Beorn's house.
Click to expand...

Loved both those moments, everyone had a chuckle at the barrel scene

tokenwhiteboy said:
That whole barrel rolling scene was fun and one of the only things that engaged me. Of course a barrel bouncing that many times would not hold up for the final "spin". Another example of PJ taking things too far and not leaving well enough alone.
Click to expand...

Dudeee it's a film, it's a fantasy, it's a kids story, the barrel can bounce as many times as it wants.
 
MileCreations said:
Dudeee it's a film, it's a fantasy, it's a kids story, the barrel can bounce as many times as it wants.
Click to expand...

There is a HUGE misconception that the Hobbit is a story for kids. After picking the book up again this morning to read, it doesn't take long to realize that. Yes, Tolkien wrote it in passive voice with a vocabulary that a third grader can understand, but there are more than a few PG-13 moments in the book as well.
 
tokenwhiteboy said:
There is a HUGE misconception that the Hobbit is a story for kids. After picking the book up again this morning to read, it doesn't take long to realize that. Yes, Tolkien wrote it in passive voice with a vocabulary that a third grader can understand, but there are more than a few PG-13 moments in the book as well.
Click to expand...

The Hobbit, or There and Back Again, is a fantasy novel and children's book by English author J. R. R. Tolkien.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit
Click to expand...

.
 
When is the last time you read it?

And perhaps a separation of what "children" are is required. Do we say children are 5 to 18? No. Children would be 5 to 12 and then on from there. Would the Hobbit be a good book for a 10 year old / 5th grader? Perhaps. I remember reading it first in 6th grade. Of course this depends a lot on the individual child. I would say the vast majority of readers are early teens.

Interesting to note that it (the book) won an award for juvenile fiction which is now deemed 7 to 12. Of course, what was considered children's literature of the late 1930s is vastly different than what is considered juvenile fiction today.
 
Last edited:
tokenwhiteboy said:
When is the last time you read it?

And perhaps a separation of what "children" are is required. Do we say children are 5 to 18? No. Children would be 5 to 12 and then on from there. Would the Hobbit be a good book for a 10 year old / 5th grader? Perhaps. I remember reading it first in 6th grade. Of course this depends a lot on the individual child. I would say the vast majority of readers are early teens.
Click to expand...

In full Grade 5/6, though I understood it just fine then
 
MileCreations said:
In full Grade 5/6, though I understood it just fine then
Click to expand...

Ok. I read it this morning. As I said, the 5th and 6th grade level (10 and 11 year olds) is the top end of what is considered the juvenile fiction market.

Consider this, where the wild things are is also a children's book (with some questionable things in it as well). By these definitions, the hobbit and WTWTA would be in the same category which clearly they are not.
 
In The Hobbit novel it takes Bilbo a "week or two of this sneaking sort of life, by watching and following the guards and taking what chances he could, he managed to find out where each dwarf was kept..." and when he discovers the opportunity to escape using barrels -"For some time Bilbo sat and thought about this water-gate, and wondered if it could be used for the escape of his friends, and at last he had the desperate beginnings of a plan". The Elves themselves are the ones who roll the barrels, and they sing while doing so.

The reason I am posting about this is because in the novel the pacing of this scene is slow. It is more like a stealth scene where Bilbo is exploring the dungeons and flitting about unseen with the One Ring on his finger. There is no threat because the Elves do not realize the Dwarves are missing until much, much later and nothing happens between the barrels being rolled out and the company arriving at Lake-town - nothing dangerous or threatening anyway.

This is an example where a chapter from the novel is expanded to allow more to occur in the film adaptation. In the Desolation of Smaug there is a sense of urgency for them to escape. You have the time limit for them to reach the Lonely Mountains and use the key in the door as well as the threat of being re-captured by the Elves.

You could have adapted the Barrels out of Bond chapter into film the way it was written but it would change the pacing of the film. Something like this though would be better suited for a mini-series adaptation where you can take the time.

It's all part of the transformation a novel takes from its original form and the film adaptation because they are different beasts altogether.
 
PhantomScreenwriter said:
In The Hobbit novel it takes Bilbo a "week or two of this sneaking sort of life, by watching and following the guards and taking what chances he could, he managed to find out where each dwarf was kept..." and when he discovers the opportunity to escape using barrels -"For some time Bilbo sat and thought about this water-gate, and wondered if it could be used for the escape of his friends, and at last he had the desperate beginnings of a plan". The Elves themselves are the ones who roll the barrels, and they sing while doing so.

The reason I am posting about this is because in the novel the pacing of this scene is slow. It is more like a stealth scene where Bilbo is exploring the dungeons and flitting about unseen with the One Ring on his finger. There is no threat because the Elves do not realize the Dwarves are missing until much, much later and nothing happens between the barrels being rolled out and the company arriving at Lake-town - nothing dangerous or threatening anyway.

This is an example where a chapter from the novel is expanded to allow more to occur in the film adaptation. In the Desolation of Smaug there is a sense of urgency for them to escape. You have the time limit for them to reach the Lonely Mountains and use the key in the door as well as the threat of being re-captured by the Elves.

You could have adapted the Barrels out of Bond chapter into film the way it was written but it would change the pacing of the film. Something like this though would be better suited for a mini-series adaptation where you can take the time.

It's all part of the transformation a novel takes from its original form and the film adaptation because they are different beasts altogether.
Click to expand...

Agree... and my criticism of the film has very little to do with what is in and out of the book.

I mentioned previously that I enjoyed the barrel scene, in fact, that was my favorite part. But the dwarves being held prisoner scene did drag on - especially with all the Tauriel and Legolas stuff added in.

Much of the movie felt forced and unnatural in this regard. I don't disagree with some of PJ's choices - spicy up the barrel scene and having the dwarves fight Smaug, but I do have some issues with his execution of them.

Back to the barrel scene... this movie is so morose and brooding throughout that more of this would have enhanced the drama instead of numbing the audience to it.
 
It did occur to me, too, why doesn't he just shoot the guy?

I think maybe he simply ran out of arrows. What I think about in these sequences when the arrows are flying is, don't these people ever run out of arrows? Do they have magically bottomless quivers? Not that I mind. It's fun and convenient for the elves, or for whoever, to never run out of arrows. I'm not going out to watch the film again just to try to get a closer at Legolas's quiver to verify that he ran out in that scene, though, because, for one thing, it really doesn't matter.

As others have pointed out more than once, Legolas is perfectly handy with swords, as well, something OP seems determined to ignore or disregard.

Another thing. I'm sure it's about mixing it up. It's probably just more interesting to have Legolas do something differently now and again. In art and craft, like film, it's key to give the audience things that are visually and dramatically interesting, as opposed to just more of the same over and over again. I guess PJ just wanted some more smack down on Legolas's end.

Or it could be as simple and practical as needing something action packed to cut to from the other action going on elsewhere and at the same time.

Another thing. Something I'm more and more conscious of when I watch films, and expecially TV series, is that it's often about, I speculate, giving different actors more lines, more screen time, more things to do, more etc.

I like the sweeping vistas in these films. It's just part of their DNA.

I don't think I could care less how many films they choose to break this or that book into. As long as they're good films, it's all good. I love fantasy and scifi. The more such films they make, the merrier. Far better than there being a dearth of them.

Peter Jackson has not lost it.
 
Last edited:
richy said:
It did occur to me, too, why doesn't he just shoot the guy?

I think maybe he simply ran out of arrows. What I think about in these sequences when the arrows are flying is, don't these people ever run out of arrows? Do they have magically bottomless quivers? Not that I mind. It's fun and convenient for the elves, or for whoever, to never run out of arrows. I'm not going out to watch the film again just to try to get a closer at Legolas's quiver to verify that he ran out in that scene, though, because, for one thing, it really doesn't matter.

As others have pointed out more than once, Legolas is perfectly handy with swords, as well, something OP seems determined to ignore or disregard.

Another thing. I'm sure it's about mixing it up. It's probably just more interesting to have Legolas do something differently now and again. In art and craft, like film, it's key to give the audience things that are visually and dramatically interesting, as opposed to just more of the same over and over again. I guess PJ just wanted some more smack down on Legolas's end.

Or it could be as simple and practical as needing something action packed to cut to from the other action going on elsewhere and at the same time.

Another thing. Something I'm more and more conscious of when I watch films, and expecially TV series, is that it's often about, I speculate, giving different actors more lines, more screen time, more things to do, more etc.

I like the sweeping vistas in these films. It's just part of their DNA.

I don't think I could care less how many films they choose to break this or that book into. As long as they're good films, it's all good. I love fantasy and scifi. The more such films they make, the merrier. Far better than there being a dearth of them.

Peter Jackson has not lost it.
Click to expand...

I have seen the LOTR movies at least 100 times each (extended version) and have never been bored. I even made it through the first Hobbit movie (which many claimed as too slow) without boredom... but my visceral reaction to Desolation was to walk out. This has nothing to do with the books but everything to do with good story telling and the execution of such.

There was mention that TTT was a cliffhanger, perhaps, but it also had a very satisfying resolution.

All PJ gave us was terrible looking molten gold that defied physics for a twirling dragon as a money shot that should have instead been some more desolation before being killed.

A much better ending would have been the death of Smaug here... then the title would have world both ways, the desolation that Smaug caused (of which we see barely anything and would have been much better than him chasing fire-resistaant dwarves and Bilbo) and the desolation of Smaug as the surviving lake people get their revenge on him.
 
tokenwhiteboy said:
I have seen the LOTR movies at least 100 times each (extended version) and have never been bored. I even made it through the first Hobbit movie (which many claimed as too slow) without boredom... but my visceral reaction to Desolation was to walk out. This has nothing to do with the books but everything to do with good story telling and the execution of such.

There was mention that TTT was a cliffhanger, perhaps, but it also had a very satisfying resolution.

All PJ gave us was terrible looking molten gold that defied physics for a twirling dragon as a money shot that should have instead been some more desolation before being killed.

A much better ending would have been the death of Smaug here... then the title would have world both ways, the desolation that Smaug caused (of which we see barely anything and would have been much better than him chasing fire-resistaant dwarves and Bilbo) and the desolation of Smaug as the surviving lake people get their revenge on him.
Click to expand...

What makes you think it defied physics?

My understanding is that that golden statue was crafted years earlier and that they channeled the heat towards it in that scene to melt it to collapse onto Smaug
 
I liked that the film ended with a cut to black after Bilbo says his line of dialogue (I cannot remember the exact words at the moment) because in every other film in this series so far the ending shot has been of the characters standing and looking at their destination from a distance or the destination is shown, (except of course Return of the King) and then the shot fades out slowly. For me the fact that Desolation of Smaug ends with a full stop is refreshing and it matches the statement Bilbo makes as well.
 
tokenwhiteboy said:
Remember Raiders of the Lost Ark. Big guy swinging his sword all around and what does Indy do? Pulls out his gun and shoots him. This is precise storytelling that advances the story because the character is staying true to what has been established.
Click to expand...

Funny example, that. There actually WAS supposed to be a fight there, initially.

IMDB said:
The famous scene in which Indy shoots a marauding and flamboyant swordsman was not in the original script. Harrison Ford was supposed to use his whip to get the swords out of his attacker's hands, but the food poisoning he and the rest of the crew had gotten made him too sick to perform the stunt. After several unsuccessful tries, Ford suggested "shooting the sucker." Steven Spielberg immediately took up the idea and the scene was successfully filmed.
Click to expand...
 
Regarding Sauron, was having the same (why the hell didn't Gandalf do anything for 60 years) discussion earlier, which led to wikipedia's summary of the Necromancer story (spoilered on the offhand chance that there's anyone who does not know this):
As the power of Dol Guldur grew, the Wise came to suspect that the controlling force behind the Witch-king and the other Nazgûl was indeed their original master, Sauron. In 2063, Gandalf went to Dol Guldur and made the first attempt to learn the truth, but Sauron retreated and hid in the East. It would be almost 400 years before he returned to his stronghold in Mirkwood, and his identity remained undetermined.

Sauron finally reappeared with increased strength in 2460. About the same time, the long-lost Ruling Ring was finally recovered from the River Anduin, found by a Stoor Hobbit[39] named Déagol. Déagol's friend and relative[40] Sméagol coveted the Ring and killed Déagol to get it, and was eventually corrupted by it, becoming the creature Gollum. Banished by his family, he took the Ring, which he called his "Precious", and hid in the Misty Mountains.

In 2850, Gandalf made a second attempt to spy out Dol Guldur. Stealing into the stronghold, he was finally able to confirm the identity of its lord.[41] He reported this to the White Council of Elves and Wizards, but Saruman, hoping to acquire the One Ring for himself, dissuaded the Council from acting against Sauron.

Eventually, the Wise put forth their might and drove Sauron from Mirkwood in 2941. During the White Council's delay he had, however, prepared his next move, and was willing to abandon Dol Guldur.

Also bear in mind that Gandalf will likely think he has defeated Sauron in the next movie (we don't yet know how that's going to play out), so there's plenty of reason for him to not consider Sauron until the facts are pointing towards that way at the beginning of Fellowship. Tolkien's timeline on that is pretty crazy, until you consider that Saruman is already pretty evil, and no one knows it yet. Other than Smaug, the Necromancer story was what I was looking forward to the most in these films, and excited to see how it ends!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top