quote:

---

Originally posted by BenSmerglia:
Umm...last I heard the budget was $150 million for all three films, so roughly $50 mil per film.

---

I don't know where you heard that, but it's wrong. Allow me to enlighten you with the correct numbers, since I actually took the time to look it up:

Fellowship of the Ring: $93 million
Two Towers: $94 million
Return of the King: $94 million

That equals $281 million for the production budgets alone. Add marketing costs and the total comes out to $426 million.

Mmmkay?

the trilogy has earned $2.9bn. That is more money to New Line to spend on films, and therefore more jobs are created working on big studio films. Which means better odd of us becoming successful.... i guess

i loved the trilogy for what it did. It truely revolutionised a new style of production and cinematography methods.

i think making the lotr trilogy into a movie series is one of the greatest achievements of the past few years. these things are going to be remembered forever..seriously.

sure they could've been better, could've followed the books more closely, blah blah blah...but i think peter jackson captured the spirit of the books and that's more than a lot of book to movie adaptations can say. [especially one as in depth and far reaching as this one].

if you just don't like the movie, i respect that. however...i think it deserves some credit, at least from a technical standpoint [if you can't deal with it from an aesthetic viewpoint].

okay. enough of that.

well said ^^

I've been reading the books since I was nine years old so I have a little bit of a positice bias towards the movies.
Before I heard they were coming out I promised myself I would make the books into a movie one day.
Then Peter came along and crushed that dream, but honestly . . . I'm kind of glad he did it and not me. I don't knwo if I could have done it any better. I probably would have changed some of the dialogue and a couple of the shots, but thats about it.
The trouble these people went through to get these movies done is astounding.

quote:

---

the trilogy has earned $2.9bn. That is more money to New Line to spend on films, and therefore more jobs are created working on big studio films. Which means better odd of us becoming successful.... i guess

i loved the trilogy for what it did. It truely revolutionised a new style of production and cinematography methods.

---

more jobs? LOTR isn't about more jobs i can guarantee you that. its all about $$$, and making lots of it and stealing ti from your pockets, sorry to break it to ya. I mean do you think they come out with 4 different dvd versions per film so that they can create more jobs? the whole jobs thing is nice, but that 2.9bn isn't going to making more films, its going to the pockets of corporate big wigs ( i don't know which corporation owns new line of hand, but its one of these vertically integrated giants i assure you), and now theyve got a taste of the money and will rape anything to get more. the final equation is crap in, crap out!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Forsakenproductions:
Before I heard they were coming out I promised myself I would make the books into a movie one day.
Then Peter came along and crushed that dream, but honestly . . . I'm kind of glad he did it and not me. I don't knwo if I could have done it any better.

---

omg! lol - you took the words from my mouth! i honestly could have said the exact same thing.

-LOTR has increased the film industry about 10 fold in NZ, thats more jobs.

-yes they are after more profits, but to gain even more profits they are going to make even more movies using some of the cash generated by LOTR, yes more money goes to the companies investors, but happy investors invest more money to make more money.

higher profits = more capitol = more movies = even more profits.

yes 9 out of 10 hollywood movies do not make a significant profit, however new line seems to be on a pretty good run.

quote:

---

-LOTR has increased the film industry about 10 fold in NZ, thats more jobs.

---

That isn't alwasy a good thing man, I'm from B.C. and since it's steady rise in productions, we have hosted such films as "I, Robot", "Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever," and currently "Fanstastic Four." These aren't adsactly grade A films IMO, and while they bring jobs to alot of people in the industry, they do nothing but hurt the artform. How can a true Canadian film get made and seen in an environment like this? Our national identity is beer commercials and NHL for chrissake!!!

quote:

---

-yes they are after more profits, but to gain even more profits they are going to make even more movies using some of the cash generated by LOTR, yes more money goes to the companies investors, but happy investors invest more money to make more money.

higher profits = more capitol = more movies = even more profits.

yes 9 out of 10 hollywood movies do not make a significant profit, however new line seems to be on a pretty good run.

---

That's the problem. They turn it into a business, with a business platform and format. Now they apply the adsact same blue prints to every other film. Are they willing to go into debt to make a good film? Will they put $$$ into a guarantee flop if it means creating a great piece of art? Of course not. They don't do anything for film except prevent the natural progression and evolution that all artforms need. That's what studios and the "business of film" do/does.

Honestly HDK, the movie business is just that: business.
No one will want to invest in your movie for "art" puposes. There is no benefit to anyone in that.
And if more movies come out that suck you'll appreciate the few gems that come out even more.

what HDK means is that they've turned art into a big business. which I totally agree. Art should not be about business, art is about creating and expressing ideas and thoughts you have. to turn that into a business is just destroying the art. so then the business people realize, hey, we dont need to make "artistic orginal movies" anymore, we can just put in a bunch of special effects and sh** to get people to pay for the movie. Thing is, they've been doing this since the mid seventies now, people are USED to seeing crappy movies to a point where they think they are good, but as soon as they see something different and original they are either confused, blown away, or dont even see it. I was blown away.

did that make sense? I dont think so. Whatever. Art rules, business drools. Screw money. As soon as you have money in your mind when working on a movie, your a jerk.

They've been doing it a lot longer since before the seventies Kyle. The stars and the starlets of the twenties come to mind when I think of Hollywood destroying an artform and turning it into a marketable commidity.

-Elliott

its just film has totally been destroyed, its not art anymore (very little is). IT'd be like walking into a museum and seeing nothing but a bunch of MONA LISA's on the walls, only each one a little different. Thats what film is now, just repeating the same ideas OVER AND OVER again and not adding anything creative or new to it.

yeha, but I was talking more about the big budget BS movies. After Star Wars everyone wanted money.

thanx Kyle, that's what i meant

Every art form has it's people that pretty much just do it for the money. We watched this movie in art class about this guy (forget his name, but he did huge super realistic paintings, and no does more abstract paintings), who said he wouldn't paint those if he wasn't making the kind of moeny he was making. I'm not saying it's right that you only do it for the money, but people are greedy, I don't like it anymore than you. But I think it's wrong to say that everything that will ever come out of Hollywood is going to suck. Sure lots will, but there's still some very good movies that come out of it. You aren't going to make too good of a living off of indy films, so guess what you have to do if you want to make movies and live decent, make Hollywood movies.

I never plan on making a living off of movies. I never think about that. I don't wanna make movies cause I'm expecting some sort of reward for doing it, the reward is the final product. The reward is that I created something I can share with others.

In an idealistic world i would do it purely for the reward of the final product. but due to that thing called capitolism, or 'freedom' as it is known in america, that is not so.

all i am saying is that i would prefer to have a better chance at getting a job than be unemployed and not able to fully express myself in my chosen artform to the maximum of my potential. to me that would be hell.

yes, before the point comes up there are many restrictions to this attidude, but honestly, if i am out their doin anything to do with film, and able to earn a living out of it, i will be the happiest person alive.

speaking of paintins, how rich were any of the great painters? Weren't alot of them **** broke while they were alive? Weren't alot of famous composer's **** broke too? They had no idea the impact of their work, but that didn't stop them from doing it. casue if u ask me QT should have kept his job at the video store instead of getting paid off to endorse other ****ty films (like Hero), the problem isn't people making a living, its ppl whoring off an artform, and becoming excessive in what the make and demand. Did Justin Timberlake or Destiny's Child need the money they got from Mcdonalds? They make more in a week than most ppl (me included) will make in our entire lives. Ppl are doing anythign for money, all of the actresses who do **** films and chanel commercials, everyone involved just doesn't care. And now you can't get a film played in a theatre cause its all vertically integrated and owned by a studio. ****, you can't even four wall in some major cities now. It's to the point where Hollywood is running a monopoly on film, and the only place where you can get ur film played is on a site like this one, and it COSTS u money to play it here!!! I'm not saying this site isnt great, it is, and the money is well worth it. But we are all here because theres no way to get ur **** out there without selling out and getting a distributor. Why does every cinematographer in hollywood say film is better than digital/HD and always will be? Cause as soon as we all find out that our films shot on our camcorders can be better that their multi million dollar blockbusters, theyre gunna be out of a job...

how did this turn into an anti hollywood thread, sorry, where did we start anyways? LOTR?

great post HDK. Especially the painters part. Their art is like wine, it got better with age and more people were able to enjoy it. Will "I, ROBOT" be enyoyed by people in ten years? NO! It's gonna be off the shelves and replaced with whatever new garbage is out that year. But then there's pure gems like "2001" and "APOCALYPSE NOW" that will stay on shelves (HOPEFULLY) because they are beautifull, creative, ORIGINAL FILMS!