LOTR: FOTR Predictions

$73.1 million total through the weekend. I woefully underestimated the number of D&D nerds out there willing to sit through this flick.

The big surprise of the weekend to me was seeing The Majestic way down at Number 8.

Potter still hasn't passed Shrek, but it should have no problem passing Shrek by next Sunday. It's only about $4 million short. Probably not going to pass $300 million, though.

C'mon man, drop it. You did this on the FD Forums, too: LOTR is not some geeky D&D thing. Geeky stuff is practically by definition a niche market...it's not geeky if it's highly mainstream. LOTR: FOTR is a jaw-dropping, magnificent film...not a bunch of nerd-fodder. Seriously. I feel genuinely sad for you, not wanting to see this, or Harry Potter.

And yeah, Potter will pass "Shrek" without so much as a glance...I do think that, while not likely to reach $300 million, it'll come very close.

I put a smiley.

There's no reason to be sad that I have no desire to see fantasy movies. I live in the real world and I prefer my movies to inhabit that world as well. It's a matter of taste. I could see Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter and I wouldn't like them. That's just me.

You should no more feel bad for my having different tastes than I should feel bad for you for generally not liking scores of Independent movies that get made every year that many people love for whatever reason.

The only genuinely sad thing was that I had to think for a minute before I remembered what the FD Forums were.

Hmm, yes, that is sad. Man, what's with the lack of love towards these movies? Can THAT many people be wrong? Even if they can, isn't it worth a try? Inhabit the real world? C'mon...I'm sure you've enjoyed your share of sci-fi movies...the fact that these two are in a very different world can't be the problem you have with them.

I like very little Sci-Fi, and the Sci-Fi I like is generally just Earth of the Future stuff (and therefore, it's grounded in "our world"). Or if it's funny. I could watch a funny fantasy movie (something like "The Princess Bride, for example, though that wasn't too much in the fantasy realm, really. But something with that tone would appeal to me).

It's not a matter of other people being right or wrong, it's a matter of other people liking things other than what I like. It's just like OG- falling so in love with Vanilla Sky. I didn't care for that movie (I honestly would've walked out had I not been with someone else, and I haven't walked out of a movie since "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid"), but that doesn't mean he's wrong or I'm right. It just means that we like different things. It happens with lots of things. I could make one heck of a list of things that millions of people loved that I didn't care at all for (Survivor being a very recent example. I tried to watch, but I just couldn't muster up the energy to care).

I tried with these books back when I was younger. I tried with the cartoon show back when I was a kid (and that was during a time when I liked fantasy stuff a lot more than now), and I could never get into it. And nothing I've seen so far of the Lord of the Rings (or Harry Potter, for that matter) tells me that anything would be different now. I've seen nothing that interests me. If I saw one trailer or clip or whatever that made me want to see the movie, I'd go (which is what happened with Vanilla Sky. They gave me a trailer that piqued my interest, so I went). Until then, I'm skipping it.

I realize that it's not universally right or wrong...I didn't mean it in that way. We all have different tastes, but saying that you don't like something so very broad...well, I have to believe, with all due respect, that it is a serious exaggeration. It's like not seeing "The Natural" because you don't like baseball; well, heck, there's plenty of parts that don't involve baseball. You don't have to like baseball to enjoy it.

You don't have to like fantasy to enjoy some fantasy movies, either...especially ones that boast what LOTR does: a made-up, realistic world. Amazing monsters...mountains, huge creatures, and, above all, a story of corruption, power, and epic battles. So, I guess my thinking would best be summarized this way: not liking fantasy in general doesn't mean you won't like the movie. A movie consists of many parts. This movie could be adapted to have the same messages and many of the same emotions, but set in a realistic modern-day society, if it had to be.

But one can know he generally doesn't like a specific genre of movie and then decide on a case-by-case basis whether any particular movie will break that general dislike through things like synopses, reviews, trailers, clips, past experiences with the property, etc.

For example, I don't generally like Sci-Fi movies, but my past experience with Star Trek makes me likely to see the next Star Trek movie. I don't generally like horror movies, but the Scream trailer and reviews, etc. made me interested enough to go see that movie. Show me something that makes me think I might like the movie, and I'll go even if it is in a genre that I don't usually like.

If I had seen something among all that stuff that made me interested in either of those movies, I'd have gone by now. So far, there's been nothing that makes me want to go. The main thing I've heard is something along the lines of "Lots and lots of people love the books, so you should go see the movie." But I didn't read the books (either LOTR or Harry Potter).

As a matter of fact, the only people I know who are interested at all in these movies (both LOTR and Harry Potter) are people who have already experienced the books and enjoyed them. The people I know who never read the books (and that would be most of the people I know) don't have any desire to see the movies (and we'll just chalk it up to coincidence that the two people I know offline who want to see LOTR are also the two nerdiest people I know).

Also, don't you think it's a little weird that you are on my case about generalizing about movies when you've done the same thing. I recall your big spiel about how you don't like Indepenent movies. That's an even broader generalization than I've made.

We all want to defend the things we like, and we often can't understand why other people don't like the same things we do. In the same way that you can't understand why I could not like Lord of the Rings at all, I can't understand how you can be so smitten with it because it just looks annoying, boring and stupid to me.

Well, wouldn't the overwhelmingly positive reviews, and amazing effects, as well as the experienced and finely-tuned cast serve as enough of a breakthrough? Yes, I don't usually like less than mainstream films...but with CTHD, for example, It simply received too much critical praise for me to ignore it, and I saw it as soon as it was released out here. I feel like I'm arguing FOR you, not with you, because I'm terrified of the thought of you missing such an amazing movie simply because you don't usually like fantasy movies.

For the record, Harry Potter and LOTR are the only fantasy-type films I can think of that I enjoy...partially because "The Princess Bride" is more comedy than fantasy, though. I don't usually like them either...Peter Pan and all that; it's not my bag. I hated "Legend," too. But we're talking about a story with some truly magnificent undertones, and some jaw-dropping creatures.

I suppose I can't handle the thought that someone wouldn't even want to see this movie. I cannot comprehend this fact...I really can't. It honestly doesn't appeal to you? Nothing about it? The cast, the reviews, the amazing effects nad terrifying battle scenes and creatures?

Absolutely nothing I've seen about it so far has swayed my opinion toward wanting to see the movie (and the quality of the effects doesn't usually sway me toward seeing a movie. Titanic and Twister being the only exceptions I can think of. And I didn't see Titanic until it came to cable TV). If I do eventually see it, it will be because it comes on HBO some Sunday afternoon when I don't have anything else to do.

Critical praise is such a tricky thing. I can't even begin to count the number of movies that got huge critical praise that I didn't care for (and vice versa. I've loved some movies that were critically panned). When I say reviews can change my opinion, I tend to mean information about the movie itself within the review rather than the opinions of the reviewer themselves.

And I never saw Legend, either (I haven't seen CTHD for that matter... or Gladiator.... or Braveheart.... or Dances With Wolves.... or any number of other movies that have received critical praise. But I am one of the few people in the world who saw "The Last Night" starring Jeff Hoferer in the theater).

Well, I'm sorry to hear it. I don't mean that in a condescending way...it just feels like such a shame that you either won't see it, or, if you do, won't be able to feel the sense of awe and amazement I've felt while seeing it. I wish everyone could feel it.

Back on-topic: LOTR is whooping it up. It's made over $10 million on the (if I'm not mistaken) 24th, 25th, 26th, 27, AND 28th. It'll likely do so on the 29th, 30th, and 31st, IMO. Maybe on the 1st, too, seeing as how it's New Year's Day and all. I'll tell ya, even for holidays (the 26th-30th are semi-holidays really), these numbers are pretty dang good.

After this weekend, it'll likely have hit $150 million after 12 days of release, with few signs of slowing down. Most are predicting a drop from $45 million on its opening weekend, to only $35 million this weekend. In addition, lets not forget that it didn't even open on a Friday (meaning the opening weekend gross would have been bigger if it had), and that a drop of only $10 million is a huge deal when it's making a lot during the weekdays, too. I think it shows us that even though people are going in droves now, a significant number of them are coming BACK to see it again. It's likely drawing people who wouldn't usually see such a movie out of the woodwork, too, to give a shot.

If It pulls in $35 million this weekend (which it almost certainly will), you can bet on it: $230-250 million is pretty dang likely, with $200 million completely in the can. I must chuckle at some "analysts" who wrote about how its genre (Fantasy), group with its apparently niche market, plenty of competition, and a 3-hour running time, would make it virtually impossible for it to gross $200 million domestically. Harumph.

That is pretty good. I never thought it would make any large sum of money as fast as it has. I thought it might take a little longer being not mainstream with anybody other than fans. I guess I was proven wrong.

__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg

Update: LOTR dropped from $45 million to around $37 million in its second weekend, even though TONS of people saw it around Christmas, and all the weekdays surrounding it. Several other movies actually improved from last week...with two nearly doubling their take from last weekend! Amazing weekend all around, check it out:

The problem with saying Fantasy movies are bad, is that its true, they usually are bad.

For the most part I don't tihnk hollywood understands Fantasy, they need more former D&D geeks running the studios.

Fantasy is not about magic, or dragons, or swords and goblins. It is about people, and the ultimate struggle between good and evil.

Too many fantasy movies focus on their special effects, or some other gimmick. This is why they fail. They spend all this money on some special effect and so they spend alot of screen time on it. George Lucas once denounced such a practice by saying that it was okay and often made a movie deeper in you spent 2 million dollars on something only visible for 5 seconds. The effects, settings, gimmicks, or gizmo's that suck up the movie's budget shouldn't be giving screen time like they were characters themselves (Red Planet take note).

Another problem, with movies like Dungeons and Dragons, is that they don't know their demographic. They pick a babyfaced kid to be their hero and fill the movie with a lot of cutsie cheesy jokes and wonder why it fails. In other words they're aiming their movie at too young a crowd, they think that only preteen kids want to see fantasy. So fantasy will also often have really dumbed down violence. Instead they need a hero like Mad Martigan in Willow (Val Kilmer). Rough, bawdy, and realistic. A man not a boy. They also need realistic BraveHeart style violence.

What makes LOTR great is not that its has hobbits and orcs and elves and awesome special effects. What makes it great is the same thing that makes BraveHeart great or Titanic kinda good. Because you have loss, because you have death, because you can feel the pain of the characters.

When I was sitting in the theatre waiting for LOTR to start I noticed all the kids and whispered to my fiance that this wasn't a kid's story. People see a kid (or so they think Frodo is) and think oh this is a kid's story. Its not, its dark, its violent, and its a tragedy. Its the tragic story of an unlikely hero and the task he must complete, all set against the background of an epic war that stretches across a continent.

Take away the goblins, the orcs, the swords, and the wizards, but keep the same struggle and the same character types and set it during World War II and you'd still have a good movie (Saving Private Ryan almost).

Story and setting exist independently from each other. A good story with good characters will be good if it takes place in Middle Earth, Earth, or Alpha Centari.

Because of the success of LOTR I'm sure there will be other fantasy films coming out, I hope studio execs realize that its not the fantasy that attacts people to LOTR, but the characters and their struggle. I also hope that they don't butcher some well loved book like The Wheel of Time (try making that behemoth into a movie) or DragonLance (probably will be made into a movie one day, I only hope its done by someone like Peter Jackson).

(ps: sorry for the rambling)

__________________
Chris Beasley
CB Swords - Get LOTR replica swords.
Coupon Codes - Get deals on Amazon, Dell, Gateway, and more.

Most fantasy movies are lacking, no doubt...and I do think you're right. LOTR is successful for several reasons: 1) heroism. Heroism is a theme that will ALWAYS be popular among the masses. It is a completely classic element that will never die out. Good and evil, and heros and villiains, are staples in stories like these. Like aspen said: no gimmick. B) I'd say that the other major element is just as aspen said: It's not ridiculous. It's the same types of creatures making the same types of decisions, just in another setting.

When George W. Bush makes a decision about what to do concerning the war on terrorism, he's trying to decide how best to fight evil. Whether or not you agree with his methods, I think you likely agree that, whatever he does, he does it because he thinks it will help prevent some form of evil. When Frodo makes a decision about who to trust, or what to say while on his journey, he's making the same type of decision.

Okay, this is my official "gloating post" of the day.

I think all four of you kick a significant amount of a**, but I'm sorry, I'm grinning from ear-to-ear right now.

well well well ye's of little faith, i knew from the moment it hit the box office in aust that it was going to fetch in HIGH amounts of money and how dare you think it was going to flop?? how could it flop. It was too BIG and the next LOTR's is going to attract even more again because think about it those that went and saw the first one are going to go again to see "how things turn out" and than there will be those that heard how great the first one was and see what the thing is about, LOTR's might just produce more modern version of trekkies

Yeah, well. We all know which is the objectively better film.

__________________
Everything is destined to reappear as simulation.
Jean Baudrillard
America, 1988

no not that name again, that ....

how can it be a little freak can do better than real proper magic. Im sorry i just hate that little kid and yet it must be all those little kids taking over the cinema's, scary thought. We all know LOTR's kicks the cr@p out of Harry, at least i hope we all do.

I love Harry Potter, and I'm not at all bothered that it made just a LITTLE bit more than LOTR: FOTR. It IS almost forty minutes shorter, after all, and it IS a kids movie (which gives it an edge, I believe).