That Filthy Green Stuff

[Diamond18]

Yes, I'm talking about money. It may not be green where you live, so you can substitute whatever color suits you for the title. <P>Here's something I read in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel today:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The fellowship of the ring may have fractured on screen, but it's alive and kicking in theaters.<P>"The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" took in $26 million in North America on its opening day Wednesday, up 44% from the $18 million debut of of the trilogy's first film, "The Fellowship of the Ring" last year.<P>The film also totaled $16 million Wednesday in 14 other countries, up 45% from the 11 millions overseas gross "Fellowship" scored on its first day, distributer New Line Cinema said Thursday.<P>"Fellowship" went on to gross $313 million domestically and $860 million worldwide.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I have some questions for you all:<P>1) How much did Harry Potter debut at this year? 2) Are you surprised that TTT made more that FotR or not? and 3) Do you think it will end up with a higher gross than FotR or suffer the Faramir backlash and fall short?<P>I'm glad it's successful, even if I had my disapointments, and I hope that it out grosses FotR not because I think it was better (I don't—It was okay, but definitely not better) but because that will show that people will still be looking forward to RotK instead of growing tired of LotR. I suppose I mean non-Tolkienites when I say that.<p>[ December 20, 2002: Message edited by: Diamond18 ]

[Túroch]

Interesting question Diamond. Is it right that TTT, which is a worse movie then FotR make more moeny? I went to see the first one 8 times. I did my part for king and country. I'm probably going to see TTT much, much less. Shouldn't we show to PJ somehow which of the movies were better and why?

[Orual]

1) According to <A HREF="http://www.boxofficemojo.com/search/?title=Harry%20Potter%20and%20the%20Chamber%20of%2 0Secrets" TARGET=_blank>Box Office Mojo</A>, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets took in over $29 mil. on day one. However, I think that entire families probably went to HP, as opposed to only (relatively) older children and adults going to see the Two Towers.<P>2) I'm not at all surprised that TT made more than Fellowship. I think it was a more widely anticipated movie than Fellowship; people who, last year, hadn't ever heard of the Lord of the Rings were now waiting anxiously for the 18th.<P>3)I think it'll probably end up with a higher gross, simply because everybody is going to go see it, and even those of us who weren't entirely thrilled will go again. (I'm sticking to my as-many-times-as-possible vow, Faramir or no Faramir.) Some people loved it--a guy I know said he liked it better than Fellowship. So, I don't fear for its gross.<P>Good questions, Diamond!<P>~*~Orual~*~

[-Imrahil-]

It makes sense that it sold more. FotR was relatively uknown except to Tolkien fans. People saw FotR, liked it, and then anticipated TTT and saw it in first few days.

[Diamond18]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Is it right that TTT, which is a worse movie then FotR make more money? .... Shouldn't we show to PJ somehow which of the movies were better and why? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, I'm not thinking of "showing PJ" as being the issue. Basically because RotK is already made, so what does it matter? I can't say that him being "sorry" about TTT matters to me much. The movie is still what it is—a film which is, overall, worth watching and better than a lot of other movies out there, but not as good as its predecessor and not true enough to its source as it could be.<P>Here's what I'm thinking: If TTT were to be considered a failure, whether it be because of a low overall gross or one at least lower than FotR, I don't think most people would understand why. I can just see the Hollywood-types saying, "We told you it was too much of a gamble to make three movies at once, because you can't count on holding an audience's attention for that long."<P>I think that if it "failed" the media and the public at large would call it a fad turned into boredom, not disgruntled purists boycotting the film. The consensus would be that PJ tried to drag out a single storyline when he should have just made one movie. This would not be the truth, of course, but it is (I think) what the popular opinion would be.<P>I say this mainly from the fact that many people here on the Downs have talked about having friends or acquaintences who disliked or even hated FotR because it was "boring" and "didn't have an end." So I can just imagine the reason for a failed TTT would be "It didn't have a beginning or an end."<P>Now, realistically, I think TTT will continue to do very well. I'm just saying, I'm glad of that because a failure would discourage other filmakers from trying to do large scale epic movies that take more than one movie to complete. And also, if TTT and RotK were to fail, I think you could kiss the chances of a different film adaptation of LotR goodbye. Producers would wonder why they should "remake" a failed movie. Personnaly I'm not concerned about a different film version of LotR, but I know some have expressed wishes for it. So if you ever expect it to happen, this version needs to do well.<P>As for myself going to see it again, you bet I will. I certainly won't go 8 times, though. But I wouldn't have even if it was better than FotR...I'm just not an 8-times-in-the-theater kind of person, I guess.