Two towers info---Dvd info!!
William H. Hsu
> THE LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy
>The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers: During press conferences and
>interviews yesterday, Peter Jackson revealed some great stuff about the
>current status of the second chapter. First off a rough cut of all three
>films is done (the third one is still just loosely assembled but the
>second one is pretty much complete). He also confirmed each film in the
>series includes 500-600 FX shots and will be between 2.5-3 hours long
>each. "The Two Towers" will definitely see the Ents and Treebeard,
That doesn't tell me much yet.
I'll rest easy when I see an Ent in a trailer (how would he fit? beats
me) or the film itself.
>and increasd roles for the king's son character.
King's SON (Theodred) or King's HEIR (Eomer)?
My guess is neither, and that the reporter means Faramir, as I don't
see how one could increase Theodred's role.
PJ probably wouldn't say "King's son", so I wonder how they put
together these press release paxages. It's walays been a moostery
to me.
>The actors are scheduled to
>head back to NZ in May & June for any reshoots/touch ups required but as
>of now there's no exact words on what'll be changed/added.
That's interesting.
>The Lord of The Rings: The Fellowship of The Ring: Various other answers
>to questions emerged during the aforementioned interviews.
If I could change 1 second of the film it would probably be Bilbo's
transformation, followed by the restoration of the caption "17 Years
Later".
>Producer Barry Osborne indicates the final budget for the trilogy stands
>at $270 million.
Good news. How long before LoTR:FoTR recoups this?
>The first film's original rough cut running time stands in at a
>little over 3.5 hours so expect that 30-40 mins of extra footage to show
>up on DVD - though Jackson confirms there's no "Director's Cut" as such
>on the drawing boards.
I shall be disappointed if they just plonk the cuts onto the DVD like
so much chaff (cf. X-Men and The Sixth Sense). How hard can it be to
edit the deleted scenes "back" into the film? (It's not just hitting
"undo cut", I know, but still...)
>Amongst these deleted scenes include more
>characterisation in regards to how the supporting characters feel about
>being in the fellowship, whilst another sequence where Gimli falls for
>Galadriel. Meantime the film scored a $18.2 million opening day take, a
>record opening day for any film in December.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/Movies/12/23/hol.box.office.ap/
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/data/lordoftherings
http://www.zap2it.com/movies/boxoffice/story/1,1259,---10162,00.html
http://www.boxofficeguru.com/weekend.htm
$73M cumulative through Sun 23 Dec 2001, $45M 3-day weekend, records
for December Wednesday, 3-day, and weekend openings.
Not an all-out record breaker, but still quite a smash success!
--
Banazir
(i have converted 1 new reader of JRRT since 19 Dec 2001 * you?)
jere7my tho?rpe
(William H. Hsu) wrote:
*If I could change 1 second of the film it would probably be Bilbo's
*transformation,
That was one of my favorite moments, and supported fully by the text.
Keep in mind that what we were seeing there was a blending of Bilbo's
actual reaction and how Frodo _perceived_ Bilbo's reaction. Remember that
Frodo is slowly becoming more and more covetous of the Ring, and is not
entirely objective when he sees someone reaching for "his" Ring.
*Good news. How long before LoTR:FoTR recoups this?
You missed it -- they made it up in licensing before the film opened.
----j7y
William H. Hsu
>In article <a07q88$r4s$1...@ringil.cis.ksu.edu>, bh...@ringil.cis.ksu.edu
>(William H. Hsu) wrote:
>*If I could change 1 second of the film it would probably be Bilbo's
>*transformation,
> That was one of my favorite moments, and supported fully by the text.
>Keep in mind that what we were seeing there was a blending of Bilbo's
>actual reaction and how Frodo _perceived_ Bilbo's reaction. Remember that
>Frodo is slowly becoming more and more covetous of the Ring, and is not
>entirely objective when he sees someone reaching for "his" Ring.
It's not so much that I objected to the special effect as that it was
done in 1 sec for pure shock value. I realize that the effect was
shocking as characterized in the book, but it could have been done
without the exaggerated physical effect of pointed teeth and a vampiric
snarl. Yes, Frodo perceives something more sinister than an objective
observer of Bilbo would, but Bilbo is ALSO under the influence of the
Ring, and IMO the sudden "big scare" does less service to this subtlety
than would just letting Ian Holm act, with a little makeup and minimal
CGI.
Not a big deal, and YMMV, but the whole "medium-old Bilbo" dialogue was
good, from the moment Frodo finds him (outdoors instead of at the Hall
of Fire) through the presentation of the mithril shirt and Sting.
>*Good news. How long before LoTR:FoTR recoups this?
> You missed it -- they made it up in licensing before the film opened.
Well, yes.
Even so, how long is it projected to take for worldwide FoTR box office
sales to gross $270M? Do you think it will happen by the end of
post-production on RoTK?
--
Banazir
Boris Badenov
|It's not so much that I objected to the special effect as that it was
|done in 1 sec for pure shock value. I realize that the effect was
|shocking as characterized in the book, but it could have been done
|without the exaggerated physical effect of pointed teeth and a vampiric
|snarl. Yes, Frodo perceives something more sinister than an objective
|observer of Bilbo would, but Bilbo is ALSO under the influence of the
|Ring, and IMO the sudden "big scare" does less service to this subtlety
|than would just letting Ian Holm act, with a little makeup and minimal
|CGI.
Subtlety might have been better, but I'm not so sure this effect was altogther
inappropriate. It seemed to me that Jackson was showing visually that Bilbo was becoming
more like Gollum. The change lasted only an instant, but it was telling. I reacted at
first not to the morphing face but to Bilbo calling the ring, Precious. But, when I
thought about it, I l decided, no, that whole scene was right just the way it was.
Boris Badenov
|Well, yes.
|Even so, how long is it projected to take for worldwide FoTR box office
|sales to gross $270M? Do you think it will happen by the end of
|post-production on RoTK?
If it does, the movies will have been a failure, at least financially. New Line is
expecting $270 M from >each< of them. I read, or heard, somewhere that is the general
yardstick by which financial success of movies is measured: revenues == 3 x production
costs.
wrob
I disagree, I think the focus should have been on FRODO's reaction to
Bilbo's question, showing him growing less tolerant of people who want
to see the ring as a way of foreshadowing. This is cause for SUBTLETY indeed!
The audience already KNOWS Ian Holm was in danger of turning into Gollum
from his earlier scene; Ian's acting could have done the trick. Some minor
"point of view" atmospheric effects should have made CLEAR that it was
Frodo's perspective (much the way we see Arwen bathed in light thru Frodo's
eyes, then cut to night scene looking at both of them!)
Instead, all PJ seemed to have gotten out of that scene is, "yep, the ring
is magical, it changes people shockingly into Gollum-like creatures!!" (spit)
Gollum was but a very old hobbit, unnaturally preserved from death....
-Ber
William H. Hsu
>On 24 Dec 2001 18:00:07 -0600, bh...@ringil.cis.ksu.edu (William H. Hsu) wrote:
>|Well, yes.
>|Even so, how long is it projected to take for worldwide FoTR box office
>|sales to gross $270M? Do you think it will happen by the end of
>|post-production on RoTK?
>If it does, the movies will have been a failure, at least financially.
>New Line is expecting $270 M from >each< of them.
I know; that's what I mean.
Post-production on TTT is said to be nearly complete NOW and RoTK will
clear post-production early in 2002 from what I have heard.
But some of the revenue from FoTR is bound for the coffers of New Line
to defray the above costs (and so they cannot wait for even the late
Asian releases of FoTR or any of the TTT box office sales).
And the August 2002 FoTR DVD will cost money to produce, though I cannot
imaging AOL/TW not advancing any production costs needed for that.
>I read, or heard, somewhere that is the general yardstick by which
>financial success of movies is measured: revenues == 3 x production
>costs.
So I have heard as well.
--
Banazir
Arthur Lipscomb
Not everyone in the audience has read the trilogy. It was never stated
in the movie that Gollum used to be a Hobbit, so a portion of the
audience may not know that Bilbo is in danger of turning into Gollum.
That scene makes it clear that he not only still craves the ring, like
an addict, but that it is having an overt physical effect on him.
As has been repeatedly stated, film is a visual medium. When the budget
allows, they should always show instead of tell. What can be left to
the imagination in a book, must often be shown on the screen (of course
the film maker can run into trouble when what the reader imagined
differs from what the filmmaker shows). Subtlety may work in a film
like the Shawshank Redemption or Glengary Glenross but this is a big
budget special effects laden fantasy film. The audience expects to see
the effects on the screen right along side the great acting
performances. Plus, it's a nice surprise/shock the audience isn't
expecting; there's absolutely nothing wrong with including a shock here
or there in a movie like this.
Zark
"Boris Badenov" <bb...@frostbite.falls.state.mn.us> wrote in message
news:vosf2u8ahuns65qdj...@4ax.com...
True - but this film is an oddity.
It is the only super-flick (that I know of) that has, from the start,
been a 3 film - film, if you know what I mean ;-)
This is in marked contrast to say Star Wars or The Matrix which
were never meant to be anything more than a single film originally.
Both the above were only able to spawn sequels due to the
financial success they achieved.
LOTR is **an extreme risk**.
But one that I feel will work - *in the long term*
Fact is - people are going to really struggle to buy into
this <next episode in 2002> lark.
The first film is an excellent piece of work, don't get
me wrong, but there is no closure and hence the
audience are going to feel as if they have been
cheated out of an ending. Which is a fair argument
I suppose.
If Jackson had done say....the Hobbit and it
had gone on to pull in $300 million then attempting
such a mammoth task as this would have been made
eaiser, but he has chosen to do it the hard way
and so I guess the pressure is on ;-)
The **true** test is how well LOTR does on
the final episode and thereafter. IMO, New Line
are banking on the fact that people will be hooked
in by the first and their appreciation will grow as
TTT and RoTK comes out.
If PJ manages to maintain the high standards set
in FOTR, then I am pretty sure that this trilogy
will be regarded as an all time classic in say
10 years time.
Umpteen hours of sequels (SW and Matrix) is
one thing, but an actual 9 hour film is something
entirely different. At the very least it is groundbreaking
cinema and it could turn out to be the film that
breaks the tedious formulaic approach that has
been adopted by the film companies for years.
My prediction of how well FOTR and LOTR (
as a whole) will do?
Well I'm pretty sure that it will have no problems
making its money back and a heck of a lot more but
,it aint going to be a raging forest fire of
a film. New Line Cinema may start to get the
jitters in a couple of weeks because I **don't**
think that this film will smash all records as some
people have claimed. However, I do think that
the film will have the desired effect of interesting
the audience enough for them to go and watch
TTT - an episode which IMO is altogether easier to
film and should enthrall viewers even more with
such delights as Shelob, Gollum, Helm's Deep
(aaaah an attack on a Mountain Fortress!!!!) etc.
Although how PJ handles the <ahem> shocker
at the end of TTT will be interesting ;-)
All being well, I reckon after TTT there should
be a substantial amount of interest going into
RoTK - where everyone gets the 'closure payoff'
that they have been waiting for (as well as more
battles and Arwen v Eowyn scratching each others
eyes out!)
So - I reckon LOTR **will** be a huge success,
but it is going to take time - this type of thing has
never been done before in cinema and people
shouldn't expect instant results.
To use a film analogy - anybody remember that
absolute shocker of a sequel 'Force 10 from
Navarone'?
The bit where Robert Shaw and Harrison Ford
detonate some explosives inside the dam and
it doesn't collapse? Shaw runs up the hill to
the explosives expert and threatens to kill him,
Miller turns round and says something like.
"Have a little patience my friend'.
Hey presto - 10 minutes later the dam collapses
and everybody is happy! (except the poor
Germans in the valley half a mile away of course).
;-)
Zark
R. Cohen
> ln...@webtv.net writes:
> >The first film's original rough cut running time stands in at a
> >little over 3.5 hours so expect that 30-40 mins of extra footage to show
> >up on DVD - though Jackson confirms there's no "Director's Cut" as such
> >on the drawing boards.
>
> I shall be disappointed if they just plonk the cuts onto the DVD like
> so much chaff (cf. X-Men and The Sixth Sense). How hard can it be to
> edit the deleted scenes "back" into the film? (It's not just hitting
> "undo cut", I know, but still...)
That would be VERY interesting, sort of like an extended edition. I'm
sure there's plenty on the cutting room floor that would make some
people including myself very happy. Could I live with a 4 hour DVD
version? Definitely!
R. Cohen
> Boris Badenov <bb...@frostbite.falls.state.mn.us> writes:
>
> >On 24 Dec 2001 18:00:07 -0600, bh...@ringil.cis.ksu.edu (William H. Hsu) wrote:
>
> >|Well, yes.
> >|Even so, how long is it projected to take for worldwide FoTR box office
> >|sales to gross $270M? Do you think it will happen by the end of
> >|post-production on RoTK?
>
> >If it does, the movies will have been a failure, at least financially.
> >New Line is expecting $270 M from >each< of them.
>
> I know; that's what I mean.
> Post-production on TTT is said to be nearly complete NOW and RoTK will
> clear post-production early in 2002 from what I have heard.
>
> But some of the revenue from FoTR is bound for the coffers of New Line
> to defray the above costs (and so they cannot wait for even the late
> Asian releases of FoTR or any of the TTT box office sales).
>
> And the August 2002 FoTR DVD will cost money to produce, though I cannot
> imaging AOL/TW not advancing any production costs needed for that.
It's hard to imagine the DVD version not racking up some serious dollars...
Once production is in place, it's as simple as cranking out little discs of plastic.
Paul Antonissen
rlcc...@aol.com (R. Cohen) wrote:
I wrote to them asking them to do this. Couldn't hurt.
--
***************************************************************
-Herr Pauly
"If you drink much from a bottle marked `poison,' it is
almost certain to disagree with you, sooner or later."
Louis Epstein
: jer...@mac.com (jere7my thorpe) writes:
I don't know,of course I hope the film
does as badly as possible...but I doubt
the RENTALS (as opposed to grosses) of
the one film will reach $270M.
And I hope the merchandising licensees
lose their shirts too!
Louis Epstein
: On 24 Dec 2001 18:00:07 -0600, bh...@ringil.cis.ksu.edu (William H. Hsu) wrote:
: |Well, yes.
: |Even so, how long is it projected to take for worldwide FoTR box office
: |sales to gross $270M? Do you think it will happen by the end of
: |post-production on RoTK?
: If it does, the movies will have been a failure, at least financially.
Which any sincere lover of the books must
devoutly hope for.Profaning these texts
with dramatic adaptation must be rued and
remembered as a fool's errand!!
: New Line is expecting $270 M from >each< of them.
Worldwide gross on this one is already half there.
: I read, or heard, somewhere that is the general
: yardstick by which financial success of movies
: is measured: revenues == 3 x production costs.
That might be an accurate yardstick...in any
case...cast a look on the less-publicized rental
figures,when released,rather than the gross
figures.That's the studio's share of the take.
Louis Epstein
: "Boris Badenov" <bb...@frostbite.falls.state.mn.us> wrote in message
: news:vosf2u8ahuns65qdj...@4ax.com...
:> On 24 Dec 2001 18:00:07 -0600, bh...@ringil.cis.ksu.edu (William H. Hsu)
: wrote:
:>
:> |Well, yes.
:> |Even so, how long is it projected to take for worldwide FoTR box office
:> |sales to gross $270M? Do you think it will happen by the end of
:> |post-production on RoTK?
:>
:> If it does, the movies will have been a failure, at least financially.
: New Line is
:> expecting $270 M from >each< of them. I read, or heard, somewhere that
: is the general
:> yardstick by which financial success of movies is measured: revenues == 3
: x production
:> costs.
: True - but this film is an oddity.
: It is the only super-flick (that I know of) that has, from the start,
: been a 3 film - film, if you know what I mean ;-)
: This is in marked contrast to say Star Wars or The Matrix which
: were never meant to be anything more than a single film originally.
: Both the above were only able to spawn sequels due to the
: financial success they achieved.
No...Star Wars was originally conceived of as a three-part
story.Lucas made a point of retaining sequel rights in his
original distribution deal.
The runaway success of SW made him dream of a TWELVE-part saga...
scaled back within months to nine.Now he plans to make only
six of those nine.
: LOTR is **an extreme risk**.
: But one that I feel will work - *in the long term*
And I hope very much that they are sorry they made it.
: Fact is - people are going to really struggle to buy into
: this <next episode in 2002> lark.
: The first film is an excellent piece of work, don't get
: me wrong, but there is no closure and hence the
: audience are going to feel as if they have been
: cheated out of an ending. Which is a fair argument
: I suppose.
: If Jackson had done say....the Hobbit and it
: had gone on to pull in $300 million then attempting
: such a mammoth task as this would have been made
: eaiser, but he has chosen to do it the hard way
: and so I guess the pressure is on ;-)
: The **true** test is how well LOTR does on
: the final episode and thereafter. IMO, New Line
: are banking on the fact that people will be hooked
: in by the first and their appreciation will grow as
: TTT and RoTK comes out.
I am hoping interest will flag,as people who've
read the books see his further deviation in TTT
and throw up their hands and RoTK dies on video.
: My prediction of how well FOTR and LOTR (
: as a whole) will do?
: Well I'm pretty sure that it will have no problems
: making its money back and a heck of a lot more but
: ,it aint going to be a raging forest fire of
: a film. New Line Cinema may start to get the
: jitters in a couple of weeks because I **don't**
: think that this film will smash all records as some
: people have claimed.
That's already obvious.
: However, I do think that
: the film will have the desired effect of interesting
: the audience enough for them to go and watch
: TTT - an episode which IMO is altogether easier to
: film and should enthrall viewers even more with
: such delights as Shelob, Gollum, Helm's Deep
: (aaaah an attack on a Mountain Fortress!!!!) etc.
I think TTT will leave people feeling more
confused,unless he mangles it even more
severely.(Which is apparently his plan).
Remember that the book takes two,sometimes three,
plotlines simultaneously...Book III goes back and
forth between the western Fellowship members until
they meet up again,while Book IV follows Frodo and
Sam...and the later part of Book IV actually takes
part during the early part of Book V.
Jackson will have to either hope people will
swallow a double-feature-in-a-film,or do lots
of intercutting that will also confuse,
potentially bollixing the chronology.
: Although how PJ handles the <ahem> shocker
: at the end of TTT will be interesting ;-)
: All being well, I reckon after TTT there should
: be a substantial amount of interest going into
: RoTK - where everyone gets the 'closure payoff'
: that they have been waiting for (as well as more
: battles and Arwen v Eowyn scratching each others
: eyes out!)
All being well,Jackson will be condemned to the
same oblivion Bakshi now enjoys,and Tolkien fandom
will not have to endure the Baum-fandom equivalent
of people so clueless they think Dorothy dreamed up
Oz.
Robert Whelan
Well, there is a difficulty in that the score has to be written
to the final released version. A real reintigration of cut
scenes would require a rescoring of the entire film. Hopefully
they are going to ask Short to rescore it, or he already did
a score for the uncut version, and the theatrical version
was the "rescore".
R. Mast
>
> I think TTT will leave people feeling more
> confused,unless he mangles it even more
> severely.(Which is apparently his plan).
>
> Remember that the book takes two,sometimes three,
> plotlines simultaneously...Book III goes back and
> forth between the western Fellowship members until
> they meet up again,while Book IV follows Frodo and
> Sam...and the later part of Book IV actually takes
> part during the early part of Book V.
>
> Jackson will have to either hope people will
> swallow a double-feature-in-a-film,or do lots
> of intercutting that will also confuse,
> potentially bollixing the chronology.
>
I believe Jackson has already said he will intercut the two stories. Get
out the gasoline and burn me and Jackson at the stake for being
heretics, cause I'm extremely glad PJ will fix this horrendous writing
decision of Tolkien's. Also notice that there's less songs and scenery
detail in the latter parts of LOTR. It's interesting that Tolkien
included far fewer of the songs and rhymes from TT and ROTK, and I'm
glad Jackson had the sense to cut them from FOTR.
--
-R. Mast
Bill Binkelman
<lep...@PUF.FCC.NET> wrote:
(snip)
>
> All being well,Jackson will be condemned to the
> same oblivion Bakshi now enjoys,and Tolkien fandom
> will not have to endure the Baum-fandom equivalent
> of people so clueless they think Dorothy dreamed up
> Oz.
>
(sigh) This is so unlikely, i.e. comparisons of PJ's fate being similar to
Bakshi's, that stating it simply paints you as someone who knows nothing at
all about film. If you really believe that PJ has no other films left in him
after LOTR, you're insane. He may take some time off, but I suspect he will
be making films for many years and I also am confident that _many_ of them
will be superb, a la HEAVENLY CREATURES, THE FRIGHTENERS, et al.
Bakshi, meanwhile, will be somewhere asking "Do you want fries with that?"
Bill B
Zark
"Louis Epstein" <lep...@PUF.FCC.NET> wrote in message
news:u2hkajl...@corp.supernews.com...
Wrong again chief - Lucas did fancy making 3/6/9 (?) movies
however - there were no firm plans to make them. Don't forget
that practically every man and his dog was telling Lucas that
he'd gone stark raving bonkers - including members of 20th
Century Fox. Hell, most of the cast thought the film would
bomb!
Jackson's film is in three parts from the start.
> The runaway success of SW made him dream of a TWELVE-part saga...
> scaled back within months to nine.Now he plans to make only
> six of those nine.
Yes - but there was **no money on the table** to make
Empire and Jedi when he started filming Star Wars.
> : LOTR is **an extreme risk**.
>
> : But one that I feel will work - *in the long term*
>
> And I hope very much that they are sorry they made it.
Looks like your luck is out mate :-(
> : Fact is - people are going to really struggle to buy into
> : this <next episode in 2002> lark.
>
> : The first film is an excellent piece of work, don't get
> : me wrong, but there is no closure and hence the
> : audience are going to feel as if they have been
> : cheated out of an ending. Which is a fair argument
> : I suppose.
>
> : If Jackson had done say....the Hobbit and it
> : had gone on to pull in $300 million then attempting
> : such a mammoth task as this would have been made
> : eaiser, but he has chosen to do it the hard way
> : and so I guess the pressure is on ;-)
>
> : The **true** test is how well LOTR does on
> : the final episode and thereafter. IMO, New Line
> : are banking on the fact that people will be hooked
> : in by the first and their appreciation will grow as
> : TTT and RoTK comes out.
>
> I am hoping interest will flag,as people who've
> read the books see his further deviation in TTT
> and throw up their hands and RoTK dies on video.
I feel your pain.
> : My prediction of how well FOTR and LOTR (
> : as a whole) will do?
>
> : However, I do think that
> : the film will have the desired effect of interesting
> : the audience enough for them to go and watch
> : TTT - an episode which IMO is altogether easier to
> : film and should enthrall viewers even more with
> : such delights as Shelob, Gollum, Helm's Deep
> : (aaaah an attack on a Mountain Fortress!!!!) etc.
>
> I think TTT will leave people feeling more
> confused,unless he mangles it even more
> severely.(Which is apparently his plan).
> : Although how PJ handles the <ahem> shocker
> : at the end of TTT will be interesting ;-)
>
> : All being well, I reckon after TTT there should
> : be a substantial amount of interest going into
> : RoTK - where everyone gets the 'closure payoff'
> : that they have been waiting for (as well as more
> : battles and Arwen v Eowyn scratching each others
> : eyes out!)
>
> All being well,Jackson will be condemned to the
> same oblivion Bakshi now enjoys,and Tolkien fandom
> will not have to endure the Baum-fandom equivalent
> of people so clueless they think Dorothy dreamed up
Game over - please insert 50p.
Zark
> Oz.
Mike and Dorcie
Perhaps he will do what Lucas did and go back and finish the cut scenes and put those "Deleted Scenes" in
their own section of the DVD.
Dorcie
Ken Ream
"Mike and Dorcie" <miken...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3C296C89...@mindspring.com...
saying he hoped didn't happpen.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Ken Ream
"R. Cohen" <rlcc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a140b0ad.01122...@posting.google.com...
I love the Cameron Crowe film "Almost Famous" and the recently
released 2 DVD set with the "bootleg cut" having lots of deleted
scenes restored makes it even better. The supporting characters
are fleshed out a little better.
I'd prefer they work the deleted scenes back in to the DVD version
of the movie -provided of course its a scene that was deleted for
the sake of time, not one cut because of problems like contradicting
other scenes. Maybe we'll get the complete version when the inevitable
box set of all 3 DVD's come out. That way the can sell it now and
sell it again.
Blacksting=====:!!:=======@home.com
>If it does, the movies will have been a failure, at least financially. New Line is
>expecting $270 M from >each< of them. I read, or heard, somewhere that is the general
>yardstick by which financial success of movies is measured: revenues == 3 x production
>costs.
Do not even go there. Accounting in the movie business is pure
sorcery. I can not remember the movie now.. it was big..... but point
holder actors were told it did not make any money (i.e. you aint
gettin any) when it made over 100 million dollars in box office
receipts with the budget being less than 50 I believe.
Zeefor
news:d2mn3u8jqi6csds5e...@4ax.com...
>Jackson will have to either hope people will
>swallow a double-feature-in-a-film,or do lots
>of intercutting that will also confuse,
>potentially bollixing the chronology.
Empire and ROJ did plenty of effective intercutting.
Not to mention Godfather Pt II.
--
(|||rise|||)=(Z][E][E][F][O][R)=(|||fall|||)
"But were not out to make Christianity cool because how we believe that how
much cooler can you be get than coming on earth as human and dying...that's
pretty hard-core!!!" -Delirious
Kurt Hare
thought the exact same thing. I'm sure PJ could take it on and handle it
effectively!
"Zeefor" <zee...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%wR_7.407$1s6....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
J Greaves
Yes, great intercutting of the three battles in ROtJ, I always liked that.
Jeanette
remove nospam to email