# Lord of the Rings TV Show Reboot



## Parmandur (Nov 5, 2017)

So, it looks like WB is looking to reboot the LotR franchise as a long form TV show, and Amazon is looking to pick it up. I think it could be amazing, if it works. Any thoughts?

http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/lord-of-the-rings-amazon-1202606519/


----------



## Legatus Legionis (Nov 5, 2017)

.


----------



## ccs (Nov 5, 2017)

1st thought:  Oh good, endless filler material ala the Hobbit movies.

2nd thought:  Long form TV show?  You can already spend nearly 20 hrs watching Hobbit + LoTR - wich is longer than "long form" TV....


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 5, 2017)

ccs said:


> 1st thought:  Oh good, endless filler material ala the Hobbit movies.
> 
> 2nd thought:  Long form TV show?  You can already spend nearly 20 hrs watching Hobbit + LoTR - wich is longer than "long form" TV....



Well, I presume it would break down to an episode per chapter, which would still be rushing the story.


----------



## MarkB (Nov 5, 2017)

I wouldn't mind seeing someone try another take on the story. I always thought that Peter Jackson's version of Fellowship of the Ring was pretty much a perfect adaptation, with the liberties taken with the source material being well chosen to serve the cinematic format - but with The Two Towers and Return of the King, some of the changes felt more gratuitous and poorly-chosen.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 5, 2017)

I’d rather they did something else. Dragonlance!


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 5, 2017)

Reboot Hobbit? Please. LotR? Too soon.

With the incredible depth of great fantasy out there, why retread? Moorcock's work could be fantastic, for example.


----------



## Dioltach (Nov 5, 2017)

I'd watch both LotR and The Hobbit if they did them as mockumentaries, in the style of Modern Family.


----------



## Kaodi (Nov 5, 2017)

80s Psychadelic Lord of the Rings. Now there is a new adaptation worth doing.


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 5, 2017)

Morrus said:


> I’d rather they did something else. Dragonlance!



Warner Bros. has the rights, I think: if these trends continue, with successful LotR and Wheel of Time etc. shows, then Dragonlance's time will come...


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 6, 2017)

Legatus_Legionis said:


> Considering how many novels Tolkien wrote (over a dozen), there is lots of material/stories they can cover.



Really? I can't seem to find that many novels. Are you counting his academic publications, too?

The Tolkien Society lists exactly 12 publications before his death.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 6, 2017)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> Reboot Hobbit? Please. LotR? Too soon.
> 
> With the incredible depth of great fantasy out there, why retread? Moorcock's work could be fantastic, for example.




There isn't enough material in "The Hobbit" for more than a 10 episode series. It had to be heavily padded with junk to o make it a trilogy of movies. On the other hand there was a lot of material dropped form Jackson's version of LotR (The Ents, Tom Bombadil....), which could make for a few seasons of a TV series.

I agree with you and Morrus; there's enough other material out there that could be produced. Don't retread something which was already well served by a movie series not all that long ago. If they did something like an Eternal Champion series, rather than just something like Elric, they could even 'Doctor Who' the thing by having the hero 'move on' to another incarnation between series.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Nov 6, 2017)

I’d agree with that, absolutely. Fellowship of the Ring definitely holds up better over time than that last two of the trilogy. A lot of small deviations add up to make them less than they could have been.

As for the TV series adaptation, Jackson packed his films full of spectacle. But the books themselves, while they do have some enormous set pieces, are not necessarily budgetarily out of reach for GoT-levels of costing.

That being said, I agree with others that there are plenty of other fantasy series that could be mined instead. Hawkmoon, Elric, Pern, Gentlemen Bastards, and many others all spring to mind. But I think, as Game of Thrones draws to a close, we’re going to see a lot of studios looking for the next GoT.



MarkB said:


> I wouldn't mind seeing someone try another take on the story. I always thought that Peter Jackson's version of Fellowship of the Ring was pretty much a perfect adaptation, with the liberties taken with the source material being well chosen to serve the cinematic format - but with The Two Towers and Return of the King, some of the changes felt more gratuitous and poorly-chosen.


----------



## Legatus Legionis (Nov 6, 2017)

.


----------



## MarkB (Nov 6, 2017)

Legatus_Legionis said:


> If we look at Game of Thrones, they have it at one novel per season.
> 
> With Tolkien having twelve novels, that could translate into twelve season.
> 
> Sure, some like The Hobbit could be done in three episodes or so, they can also expand it to include what happened to Gandelf between the Hobbit and Fellowship.  While it has only been mentioned briefly, I think fans would enjoy/want such told.  (Just like how The Clone Wars filled in the fold between Star Wars Episodes III and IV).




They could do Arrow-style flashbacks, with Gandalf occasionally remembering sequences from The Hobbit that are relevant to their current predicament in Lord of the Rings.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 6, 2017)

Its not a reboot, its a different adaption.  I know, I know, but I can't help myself.   I would love this.  PJ did a good job but as someone else said, it had a lot of bad choices that they had to make due to movie run times.  A TV show would be cool as heck as long as it wans't cheap.


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 6, 2017)

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> Its not a reboot, its a different adaption.  I know, I know, but I can't help myself.   I would love this.  PJ did a good job but as someone else said, it had a lot of bad choices that they had to make due to movie run times.  A TV show would be cool as heck as long as it wans't cheap.



The budget is said to be $100 million per season, which would blow GoT record breaking budget out of the water. I love the PJ movies (at least LotR; Hobbit was terrible as an adaption), but would love a slow, mellow series largely consisting of folks walking around Middle Earth and talking.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 6, 2017)

OH how I hated the Hobbit.  Should have been ONE movie.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 6, 2017)

I'm all for another version/vision of LotR. I loved Jackson's take, but I'd welcome another, especially one generously funded by Amazon in full "we can complete with HBO and Netflix" mode.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 6, 2017)

One thing that I definitely missed from the LotR movies was "The Scouring of the Shire." If they could set a number of seasons and run to completion, including that, I think that I'd be more than happy to watch.


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 7, 2017)

Imho, the best approach would be to just use the Middle-Earth setting and use it to tell stories that haven't been covered by Tolkien's work.
Each season could cover a different period, similar to how the 'Fargo' TV show is done. That's something I'd watch.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Nov 7, 2017)

More than anything, I think that’s going to be the biggest barrier to its success, if it happens. Different events than the movies, if they’re closer to the books, yeah, great. Different actors will be tough for some roles, as they really nailed the casting in a lot of places. But it’s not insurmountable. But if it looks cheaper than the movies, that’d be the deathknell for it.



Flexor the Mighty! said:


> A TV show would be cool as heck as long as it wans't cheap.


----------



## trappedslider (Nov 8, 2017)

NO! NO NO! Haven't they (hollywood) already ruined my childhood enough!


----------



## Eltab (Nov 8, 2017)

_The Fall of Arnor_ would make a good meta-plot: a powerful kingdom divided and conquered.  Normal people trying to figure out how best to survive.  A very few powerful magic-users.  A few magical places (Weathertop) and artifacts (those crystal balls).  The BBEG usually sends hordes of minions but sometimes an 'adventuring party' of lieutenants; only rarely does he come out himself.  Legends of the greatness of days gone by.  Bombadil and Rivendell and the Shire somehow escape the destruction raging around the lands.  Personal intrigues.  The conflict of good vs evil within a single person: one main character falls over time, another struggles to attain good.  Prophecies about events to come.  Elves and dwarves on 'the edges of the map' but sometimes involved in events.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 8, 2017)

Eltab said:


> _The Fall of Arnor_ would make a good meta-plot: a powerful kingdom divided and conquered.  Normal people trying to figure out how best to survive.  A very few powerful magic-users.  A few magical places (Weathertop) and artifacts (those crystal balls).  The BBEG usually sends hordes of minions but sometimes an 'adventuring party' of lieutenants; only rarely does he come out himself.  Legends of the greatness of days gone by.  Bombadil and Rivendell and the Shire somehow escape the destruction raging around the lands.  Personal intrigues.  The conflict of good vs evil within a single person: one main character falls over time, another struggles to attain good.  Prophecies about events to come.  Elves and dwarves on 'the edges of the map' but sometimes involved in events.




There are lots of parts of "The Silmarillion" that could be fleshed-out into a full series, without running afoul of the fans who get upset over Galadrial's dress being the wrong colour. It's written like a history book, so not a lot of specific information to obsess over. The only issue would be the lack of name recognition. Anything they do would need to carry a line like "A Lord of the Rings Prequel" in the title.


----------



## Imaculata (Nov 9, 2017)

There are so many other great fantasy books to choose from!


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 9, 2017)

Ryujin said:


> There are lots of parts of "The Silmarillion" that could be fleshed-out into a full series, without running afoul of the fans who get upset over Galadrial's dress being the wrong colour. It's written like a history book, so not a lot of specific information to obsess over. The only issue would be the lack of name recognition. Anything they do would need to carry a line like "A Lord of the Rings Prequel" in the title.




Yeah that would be a great way to do the show but the producers are going to think that the familiar hooks of Strider and Frodo are too good and why take a chance.


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 9, 2017)

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> Yeah that would be a great way to do the show but the producers are going to think that the familiar hooks of Strider and Frodo are too good and why take a chance.



They only have the film rights to the Hobbit and LotR, as well: it's either give up on the gravy train, or reboot with a new approach.

Hollywood decision in that case is obvious.


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 10, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> They only have the film rights to the Hobbit and LotR, as well



Well, that's that then... one show less I have to watch.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 10, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> They only have the film rights to the Hobbit and LotR, as well: it's either give up on the gravy train, or reboot with a new approach.
> 
> Hollywood decision in that case is obvious.




Yep. Negotiate for the rest of the rights they need.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 12, 2017)

Now here's a thought ... Steampunk Middle Earth, but use a WWI-era Europe with some kingdom changes..

Frodo & Co. accompanied by Magitech Engineer Gandalf cross a war-torn Europe during the period of the first Magitech War to cast the Lord of Time's watch of power back into the fires of the factory in the Ruhr from whence it came.

Start in London (the Shire), by steam train and boat to France where they pause in Paris before having to attempt tunnels through the Alps to avoid the Western Front, pausing in Bern for a respite before moving on (Gandalf having fallen to a steam Golem). The part splits; Merry & Pippin captured by Austrian orcs and taken east while Frodo & Sam continue north toward the Ruhr. The Nine Pilots are abroad; having been defeated in their cars by the channel crossings, they are now in magitech aircraft, while the Zepplin assault on Muenchen is forming up in the Rhineland. Aragorn rescues the hobbits while taking Austria out of the picture, and raising the Bohemians come to the aid of a beseiged Muenchen whilst Frodo and Sam reach the outskirts of Berlin ...


----------



## Morrus (Nov 13, 2017)

I'm not sure that's much of a change from what Middle Earth actually was.

Except the Shire isn't the early 1900s industrial capital of the world; London's the exact _opposite_ of the Shire. Its probably some West Country village. Or Wales.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 13, 2017)

That sounds like exactly the sort of remake that I dislike. If you change something that much, then you might as well just make something new.


----------



## trappedslider (Nov 13, 2017)

That sounds like anime remake and i'd totally watch it.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 13, 2017)

Morrus said:


> I'm not sure that's much of a change from what Middle Earth actually was.
> 
> Except the Shire isn't the early 1900s industrial capital of the world; London's the exact _opposite_ of the Shire. Its probably some West Country village. Or Wales.




Fair enough ... a village. London can stand in for Bree.

Part of the point being, it needs to be familiar, yet different enough to be worth rebooting with a different artistic take.  Just rebooting into a variation of Jackson's Middle Earth is kind of pointless, IMO.


----------



## Legatus Legionis (Nov 13, 2017)

.


----------



## trappedslider (Nov 13, 2017)

well we got some info about it :



> Set in Middle Earth, the television adaptation will explore new storylines preceding “The Fellowship of the Ring.” The deal also includes a potential additional spin-off series. The series will be produced by Amazon Studios in cooperation with the Tolkien Estate and Trust, HarperCollins and New Line Cinema, a division of Warner Bros. Entertainment.




https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/lord-rings-series-moving-forward-180729545.html


My memories of reading the books will now be  ruined forever....


EDIT: *sigh* now I want a steampunk anime based on middle earth....


----------



## CapnZapp (Nov 13, 2017)

Y'all do remember this is what Jeff Bezos got when he demanded a Game of Thrones for himself, right?

The big question nobody's talking about is... how? why?

https://qz.com/1121335/amazon-dear-jeff-bezos-the-lord-of-the-rings-is-not-game-of-thrones/

Even mentioning the possibility of a LotR TV show with not just dragons (know what I mean, say no more?) feels sacrilegious.


----------



## LordEntrails (Nov 13, 2017)

*LotR Coming to Amazon TV*

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/13/entertainment/lord-of-the-rings-tv-series-amazon/index.html

Amazon just announce a "new epic journey" in Middle Earth that takes place before the Fellowship of the Ring. 

Other than the announced license deal (which seems to include potential spin-offs), little is actually known at this point. Though Sean Astin (aka Samwise Gamgee) is mentioned as a possible actor for the show.


----------



## Legatus Legionis (Nov 13, 2017)

.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 13, 2017)

"Spin off" could mean anything. "Bywater Abbey". "Cheers" set in the Green Dragon Inn. The Adventures of Tom Bombadil. Where Eagles Don't Dare. The Fresh Prince of Gondor. ...


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 14, 2017)

trappedslider said:


> well we got some info about it :
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/lord-rings-series-moving-forward-180729545.html



Sounds much more reasonable than retelling 'The Hobbit' or 'The Lord of the Rings'. And if they write their own stories rather than try to adapt what remains of Tolkien's other 'novels', it might actually be good.


----------



## CapnZapp (Nov 14, 2017)

Jhaelen said:


> Sounds much more reasonable than retelling 'The Hobbit' or 'The Lord of the Rings'. And if they write their own stories rather than try to adapt what remains of Tolkien's other 'novels', it might actually be good.



"The Lord of the Rings doesn’t contain any of the ingredients that turned Thrones into a global hit apart from the scale of its story. Thrones essentially took Tolkien’s work and added a smörgåsbord of provocative elements: copious nudity, stylized violence, and timely political intrigue."

So the question is:

Will these new stories contain any of what made GoT into a runaway success? 

Should they?

_Can_ they (do that to our memories)?

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Morrus (Nov 14, 2017)

GoT has a lot more that just nudity, violence, and politics (not that those didn't help). Most importantly it has charismatic acting, and good writing. Probably the two most important elements of any TV show. If the new LotR series has those two things, it doesn't need nudity, violence, and politics.


----------



## Maelish (Nov 14, 2017)

Well that's too bad.  I would have preferred that Netflix had won the bidding war for that show.  

Amazon might have a lot of prime users because they love the fast shipping but their streaming service is pretty bad.  The interface is confusing and captions are terrible.  It's as though they refused to use any common sense in the design.


----------



## Imaculata (Nov 14, 2017)

And don't forget plot twists!


----------



## Eltab (Nov 14, 2017)

On the rare occasions that I've been tempted to play a Middle Earth game, I've zeroed in on the river valleys between Rohan and Arnor, between the mountains and the sea, as a good place for a setting.  
I want to work in a new field, face 'typical LotR challenges' that are of manageable size, and not have uber-NPCs wandering around all the time.
One of the rivers has a bridge or ford marked on the big map; start there with the typical traders' village that springs up when travelers have to stop and change over their gear.


----------



## Eltab (Nov 14, 2017)

Morrus said:


> Most importantly it -GoT- has charismatic acting, and good writing. Probably the two most important elements of any TV show.



Based on friends' descriptions, most of the quality writing is wrapped up in one man, who has other projects ongoing.  (So he can't help with LotR.)  

Acting is a mystery to me, not predictable at all.  It seems that the last person you'd expect turns into the star of the series.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 14, 2017)

Eltab said:


> Based on friends' descriptions, most of the quality writing is wrapped up in one man, who has other projects ongoing.  (So he can't help with LotR.)




There's more than one writer in the world!


----------



## amerigoV (Nov 14, 2017)

LordEntrails said:


> http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/13/entertainment/lord-of-the-rings-tv-series-amazon/index.html
> 
> Amazon just announce a "new epic journey" in Middle Earth that takes place before the Fellowship of the Ring.
> 
> Though Sean Astin (aka Samwise Gamgee) is mentioned as a possible actor for the show.




So, basically a show about the fat hobbit making trips to the store?


----------



## trappedslider (Nov 14, 2017)

Morrus said:


> There's more than one writer in the world!




*insert joke about BBC's use of three writers and a very limited number of actors*


----------



## KahlessNestor (Nov 14, 2017)

I'm surprised anything by Tolkein would ever see the light of day after Peter Jackson's Hobbit. Pretty sure Christopher Tolkein said, "Over my dead body." I would really like to see a good Childrin of Hurin, but it's way too Germanic a tale that wouldn't likely go over well with modern American audiences unless they Hollywoodized it. If they did that, I just might have to burn someone's house down. :/

Sent from my SM-G900P using EN World mobile app


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Nov 14, 2017)

I suppose the question then becomes whether they were able to pry out the Silmarillion rights, are going to be dependent on what in the Lord of the Rings and Return of the King appendices, or are making something up entirely new. I hope for the first, suspect the second, and dread the third.


“Preceding” could include a whole lot of stuff, if they have the rights to the Silmarillion (which I still think seems unlikely).





trappedslider said:


> well we got some info about it :
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/lord-rings-series-moving-forward-180729545.html


----------



## CapnZapp (Nov 14, 2017)

No Silmarillion.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 16, 2017)

This article from Nerdist lays out a bit of the background on why this is happening now.

https://nerdist.com/lord-of-the-rings-tv-show-franchise-star-wars/


----------



## CapnZapp (Nov 18, 2017)

Ryujin said:


> This article from Nerdist lays out a bit of the background on why this is happening now.
> 
> https://nerdist.com/lord-of-the-rings-tv-show-franchise-star-wars/



For those sensitive to being sent off-site, let me summarize, so we can keep discussion here on the forums: 

Christopher Tolkien is going into retirement; others want money.



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Morrus (Nov 18, 2017)

trappedslider said:


> *insert joke about BBC's use of three writers and a very limited number of actors*




Sounds like Hollywood. I keep seeing the same people in different films.


----------



## trappedslider (Nov 18, 2017)

if you didn't find the joke funny, no need to post that you didn't find it funny.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 18, 2017)

trappedslider said:


> if you didn't find the joke funny, no need to post that you didn't find it funny.




I did. Which is why I responded with my own, complementary joke. Nether were *that* funny, but chill out!


----------



## trappedslider (Nov 18, 2017)

Morrus said:


> I did. Which is why I responded with my own, complementary joke. Nether were *that* funny, but chill out!




Sorry, I posted under the influence of a sinus head ache.


----------



## johndesmarais (Nov 20, 2017)

KahlessNestor said:


> I'm surprised anything by Tolkein would ever see the light of day after Peter Jackson's Hobbit. Pretty sure Christopher Tolkein said, "Over my dead body." I would really like to see a good Childrin of Hurin, but it's way too Germanic a tale that wouldn't likely go over well with modern American audiences unless they Hollywoodized it. If they did that, I just might have to burn someone's house down. :/
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using EN World mobile app




For _The Lord of the Rings_ and _The Hobbit_ specifically, Christoher Tolkien has no say - Middle-earth Enterprises (Zaentz Company) holds the rights.  Chris holds the rights (I think)  to everything else his father wrote though.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 21, 2017)

I'll move this over to the Media Lounge for you and merge it with the existing thread.


----------



## CapnZapp (Nov 21, 2017)

KahlessNestor said:


> I'm surprised anything by Tolkein would ever see the light of day after Peter Jackson's Hobbit. Pretty sure Christopher Tolkein said, "Over my dead body."



But that's exactly what's happening. 

(Only he's not actually dead, only entering retirement)

Ps. And please - it's Tolkien, never Tolkein...


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## wicked cool (Nov 21, 2017)

I really hope that  this and the proposed Netflix witcher series feed of each other and we get good arguments over which show is better


----------



## CapnZapp (Nov 21, 2017)

wicked cool said:


> I really hope that  this and the proposed Netflix witcher series feed of each other and we get good arguments over which show is better



At least one thing is (hopefully) not up for debate, that of mature content.

(Producing a PG-13 version of The Witcher makes as much sense as a PG-13 Barsoom film, ie none at all, and will meet the same fate if Netflix is foolish enough to go in Disney's footsteps) 

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 23, 2017)

CapnZapp said:


> (Producing a PG-13 version of The Witcher makes as much sense as a PG-13 Barsoom film, ie none at all, and will meet the same fate if Netflix is foolish enough to go in Disney's footsteps)



*shrug* I enjoyed the Barsoom movie. Nothing to get overly excited about, but not bad, either.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 23, 2017)

Jhaelen said:


> *shrug* I enjoyed the Barsoom movie. Nothing to get overly excited about, but not bad, either.




I think that movie suffered from the chicken and the egg syndrome. A lot of people complained that it gave them nothing new without realizing that a lot of SF borrowed heavily from, or 'paid homage to', that book series.


----------



## CapnZapp (Nov 23, 2017)

Jhaelen said:


> *shrug* I enjoyed the Barsoom movie. Nothing to get overly excited about, but not bad, either.



It was the biggest box-office bomb in recent history. I choose to think that was at least partially because they chose one of the properties most associated to nude (but still tasteful) artwork, and completely neutered the potential.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 24, 2017)

CapnZapp said:


> It was the biggest box-office bomb in recent history. I choose to think that was at least partially because they chose one of the properties most associated to nude (but still tasteful) artwork, and completely neutered the potential.




Production Budget: $250 million
Worldwide Ticket Sales:$284 million

So, not an amazing success, but it was also not a total bomb and far from "biggest box-office bomb in recent history". 47 Ronin, Ben-Hur (2016), King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, The Finest Hours, Live by Night, Monster Trucks, Aloha, Blackhat, and Pan are all movies since 2015 that did substantially worse than John Carter overall. 

Most people think the reason it didn't do better had to do with the name (which was a last minute change) and the marketing (which didn't have much relationship to what was actually in the movie) and the last minute loss of faith in the movie prior to release from the studio resulting in a much smaller marketing budget than had been planned.


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 24, 2017)

Mistwell said:


> Production Budget: $250 million
> Worldwide Ticket Sales:$284 million
> 
> So, not an amazing success, but it was also not a total bomb and far from "biggest box-office bomb in recent history". 47 Ronin, Ben-Hur (2016), King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, The Finest Hours, Live by Night, Monster Trucks, Aloha, Blackhat, and Pan are all movies since 2015 that did substantially worse than John Carter overall.
> ...



The numbers are much worse than they appear, since usually a studio only gets 30-50% of the total (after theatres, etc.). I do believe Disney officially made use of the losses for tax purposes.


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 24, 2017)

Albeit, the losses would certainly have been worse if Disney had done an R-rated version at the same budget.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 24, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> The numbers are much worse than they appear, since usually a studio only gets 30-50% of the total (after theatres, etc.). I do believe Disney officially made use of the losses for tax purposes.




No movie had ever made a profit for tax purposes. Star Wars is still in the red...


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 24, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> The numbers are much worse than they appear, since usually a studio only gets 30-50% of the total (after theatres, etc.). I do believe Disney officially made use of the losses for tax purposes.




For domestic, Studios get 50-55% of box office. You can see that data in the public filings of companies like Cinemark Holdings. None of the take is anywhere close to 30%. Even overseas it averages 40% or higher, depending on the location. 

The budget number is also deceptive. It often includes budget shared between different films, including a share of studio overhead. 

But on-balance the point stands: the movie was nowhere near the "biggest bomb in recent box office history".


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 24, 2017)

Morrus said:


> No movie had ever made a profit for tax purposes. Star Wars is still in the red...



Well, no: but if it fails, as John Carter did, it can be written off.


----------



## CapnZapp (Nov 25, 2017)

Mistwell said:


> Production Budget: $250 million
> Worldwide Ticket Sales:$284 million
> 
> So, not an amazing success, but it was also not a total bomb and far from "biggest box-office bomb in recent history". 47 Ronin, Ben-Hur (2016), King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, The Finest Hours, Live by Night, Monster Trucks, Aloha, Blackhat, and Pan are all movies since 2015 that did substantially worse than John Carter overall.
> ...



Why are you quibbling?

I made a point, adress it!

(Or how about simply staying in silent agreement for once, eh?)

Derailing this thread into finance speculation doesn't interest me in the slightest.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 25, 2017)

CapnZapp said:


> Why are you quibbling?




Why are you exaggerating when there is no need to exaggerate?



> I made a point, adress it!




I did. You were wrong. Address that!



> Derailing this thread into finance speculation doesn't interest me in the slightest.




Then perhaps you should not have derailed the thread into finance speculation by making a claim (which was inaccurate) about how this was the biggest bomb in recent history?

You know, you COULD just admit you goofed up for once. Nothing bad will happen to you if you do that. Nobody will think less of you or pay less attention to your views if you admit to messing up something. It will just make you look more human, not less.


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 25, 2017)

Mistwell said:


> Why are you exaggerating when there is no need to exaggerate?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, there were two claims, one being the exaggeration which you point out, the other being that the film's financial failure is due to being PG-13. The latter claim is fairly absurd, given the history of box office performance in R vs. PG-13 movies.


----------



## CapnZapp (Nov 25, 2017)

Calling it the biggest bomb in recent history is approximately true.

Not letting that slide reveals that you are more interested in finding faults than having a discussion. 

For the second and final time, I invite you to make a post that is actually on topic. 

Do you believe my theory has any merit, or not?

To repeat:
a) that John Carter performed poorly at least in part because of the discrepancy between Disney wholesomeness (American nudity moral panic) and the source material 
b) that Witcher can suffer the same result for the same decision 

Z

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 25, 2017)

For what it is worth, according to everything I can find, John Carter is one of the ten biggest flops of all time (8th biggest financial flop, specifically), with $125 million in losses for Disney:

http://www.filmsite.org/greatestflops.html


----------



## CapnZapp (Nov 26, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> For what it is worth, according to everything I can find, John Carter is one of the ten biggest flops of all time (8th biggest financial flop, specifically), with $125 million in losses for Disney:
> 
> http://www.filmsite.org/greatestflops.html



Of course.

But let's not allow Mistwell's attempt at derailing the discussion to succeed. Whether the film is a mega-bomb or just a huge flop isn't important - the question is whether it's disneyfication had anything to do with it.

What fantasy properties do you look forward to becoming TV series in this golden age of television? 

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 26, 2017)

CapnZapp said:


> Of course.
> 
> But let's not allow Mistwell's attempt at derailing the discussion to succeed. Whether the film is a mega-bomb or just a huge flop isn't important - the question is whether it's disneyfication had anything to do with it.
> 
> ...




The Disney aspect didn't hurt it, the lack of proper marketing combined with a bloated budget did it in. A lower budget film making the same money would have been considered a "hit."

I'm intrigued as to the direction the Sony Wheel of Time series might take: interesting material, but frankly might be better as animation.


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 27, 2017)

CapnZapp said:


> Calling it the biggest bomb in recent history is approximately true.



Almost everything is 'approximately true'. And if you're a politician, everything is true (if it suits you...)


----------



## CapnZapp (Nov 27, 2017)

Jhaelen said:


> Almost everything is 'approximately true'. And if you're a politician, everything is true (if it suits you...)



Ok.

Do you have anything to say on topic? 

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app


----------



## EmberGod (Nov 29, 2017)

hope the tv show will be as awesome as the movies


----------



## Gadget (Dec 7, 2017)

Parmandur said:


> The Disney aspect didn't hurt it, the lack of proper marketing combined with a bloated budget did it in. A lower budget film making the same money would have been considered a "hit."
> 
> I'm intrigued as to the direction the Sony Wheel of Time series might take: interesting material, but frankly might be better as animation.




I liked John Carter.  It wasn't perfect, and the movie suffered from too many 'opening sequences' to set things up (rather the reverse of many of the criticisms of Return of the King), but I thought it told a cool story, even if it didn't exactly follow the book.  

As for the Wheel of Time, I agree that it might be better served by Avatar:The Last Airbender style animation (or perhaps a Clone Wars Style animation), but I just don't see studios settling for that.  I'm curious what company is left to stream The Wheel of Time.  HBO has made it clear that it is not interested in a new Big Budget Franchise of the Fantasy genera, Amazon is laying out a King's ransom for Tolkien, Netflix has its marvel properties.  Maybe AMC?   

Anyways, I'm not hopeful for a tLotR series on Amazon.  I just don't see them really doing the setting or storytelling method justice.


----------



## Parmandur (Dec 7, 2017)

Gadget said:


> I liked John Carter.  It wasn't perfect, and the movie suffered from too many 'opening sequences' to set things up (rather the reverse of many of the criticisms of Return of the King), but I thought it told a cool story, even if it didn't exactly follow the book.
> 
> As for the Wheel of Time, I agree that it might be better served by Avatar:The Last Airbender style animation (or perhaps a Clone Wars Style animation), but I just don't see studios settling for that.  I'm curious what company is left to stream The Wheel of Time.  HBO has made it clear that it is not interested in a new Big Budget Franchise of the Fantasy genera, Amazon is laying out a King's ransom for Tolkien, Netflix has its marvel properties.  Maybe AMC?
> 
> Anyways, I'm not hopeful for a tLotR series on Amazon.  I just don't see them really doing the setting or storytelling method justice.



Netflix is losing Marvel in a few years, and there is also Hulu. Time will tell what Sony is able to make of Wheel of Time.


----------

