Elsewhere on the web, you can find plenty of bulletin boards etc. devoted to the New Zealand adaptation of the Lord of the Rings, which starts this year. That’s all well and good, except every one of the geeks on those boards seems to think these movies will be a huge, history-making, Star Wars-like hit, instead of a more-expensive-than-Waterworld bomb. So I am bringing the question here, a presumably more objective forum, where not everybody is a Tolkien fan.
So, what do you all think? Three movies, released over three years. Millions and millions of dollars. Not a few big-name actors. I have a horrible feeling the first movie will either bomb or get critically thrashed, and we’ll never see the other two. It’s true there’s “Net buzz,” but when has that ever produced a hit movie with legs? WHO will go to see these movies besides Tolkien geeks?
OK, I could be wrong. I’ve been wrong before. I thought “Titanic” would bomb too.
While we’re at it, answer me another question. My brother and sister-in-law (they’re parents, but so what, I’m a teacher) say more people have read Harry Potter than Tolkien. Can that possibly be true? Even with Frodo’s forty-year head start?? Grrrr, that burns me UP!!!
More than $200 million has been put into the three The Lord of the Rings movies. There’s no way that the second and third film won’t get released, even if the first one bombs. The studios have to get some of their money back.
There have been more than 50 million copies of The Lord of the Rings sold. How many copies of the first Harry Potter book have been sold?
As far as the quality of the movie, I’m not sure, but I really doubt it will bomb. The fact that there is already a large Tolkien audience is just a bonus. There might be a small problem if it opens against, say, Star Wars III, X-Men II and Harry Potter I (or any combination of highly anticipated fantasy flicks), but I doubt it. I’m sure it will be hyped enough that it becomes the sort of cultural event that draws people in regardless of substance. The fact that, in this case, there is substance, is just gravy. I’m sure Waterworld would have done (note: not “been”) better if it had any nostalgia attached to it.
Immaterial. After two weeks in the theatres, word will get around and the Tolkienites will know whether or not they should go see it. It’s risky, but I’m keeping my fingers crossed (and my bowl packed :D).
I tend to think that the movies are going to be great for a couple of reasons. First, Peter Jackson is directing them. He did Heavenly Creatures, which while not a great movie, had the look that Lord of the Rings needs.
Secondly, they are really taking their time here. They have already filmed all three movies and yet the first one doesn’t come out until December 2001(then Dec. 2002, Dec. 2003).
Also, the footage I’ve seen seems to be really good. I have good faith these movies will be accurate to the text, if not the most super-exciting blockbusters ever. They will make money, though.
There are absolutely no whispers anywhere from anyone that this isn’t going to be a spectacularly accurate and impressively epic adaptation.
The only negativity I have detected is in the few like yourself who express doubts or worries, which is fine by me. Doubts are inevitable when you’re dealing with such a precious commodity.
(There are a few annoying idiots who say things like “They’ll never live up to my imagination, so therefore I hate them already. Sean Connery should’ve been Gandalf etc etc etc.” These people need a kick in the crotch)
I say rest assured. You won’t get any better versions, I think. These will be the best they can possibly be, and if it fails it’d be because it’s not translatable to film, not through failure on the filmmaker’s part.