Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So far, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug has only grossed 255 mil domestically(and I don't think that it will reach 260 mil) and looks it will be the lowest domestic(U.S.) grossing LOTR movie in the franchise, and I know that it was one of those dark 'middle' films in a trilogy that sometimes don't perform as well as the other two films, but for Pete's sake, does anyone think that TDOS's movie poster didn't help matters?
Now I really liked The Hobbit's movie poster:
but The Desolation of Smaug's?
Really? What were they thinking?
P.S. And btw, even though I liked TDOS, I didn't think that it was as good as The Hobbit.
I really don't think posters have anything to do with a film's gross. Who goes to a movie theater, not knowing what they want to see, and bases their decision solely on the poster? Most people know what they want to see or at least know what a movie is about due to trailers or commercials and make informed decisions.
Desolation of Smaug was better than An Unexpected Journey. The posters have nothing to do with the box office.
Also, this isn't a Lord of the Rings film. In fact, The Hobbit is totally different in tone than LOTR. Sure, you have the same crew/director/writers but I really wouldn't call it an LOTR film.
You are probably right that it made less money because it is the second film of three. I'm pretty sure The Two Towers made less money than Fellowship or Return of the King.
Tome, TDOS seemed better, more action. I, very much, disliked the ending. That was very chicken-sh.t of Peter Jackson to end the movie, abruptly, right before an anticipated exciting action scene.
I can tell the Hobbit series is way more "commercial" minded than LOTR was.
After having already seen LOTR, it seems more of the same to me.
To me, TDOS seemed better, more action too.
That said, I, very much, disliked the ending.
That was very chicken-sh.t of Peter Jackson to end the movie, right before an anticipated action scene.
This is not a weekly show you arse, you don't end a movie like that, not even part 2 of a trilogy!
I can tell the Hobbit series is way more "commercial" minded than LOTR was. Hollywood got to him too.
After having already seen LOTR, it seems more of the same to me.
I really don't think posters have anything to do with a film's gross. Who goes to a movie theater, not knowing what they want to see, and bases their decision solely on the poster? Most people know what they want to see or at least know what a movie is about due to trailers or commercials and make informed decisions.
Hi, skeeter31, and thank you for your reply. Also, I agree with everything that you said above, however, since movie posters are part of the marketing and advertising for a movie, and according to a 2007 article at howstuffworks.com, here's how the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) member studios decided to allocate their marketing budget in 2007:
Newspapers: 10.1 percent
Network TV: 21.6 percent
Spot TV (purchasing commercial "spots" from individual TV stations): 13.9 percent
Internet: 4.4 percent
Theatrical trailers: 4.2 percent
Other media (includes cable TV, radio, magazines, billboards): 24 percent
Other non-media (market research, promotion/publicity, creative services): 21.8 percent
Also, I'm looking at this from the viewpoint that advertising on billboards, which are primarily movie posters, plus, the actual movie posters that you see at multiplexes or elsewhere such as on the internet, are 'subtle' forms of advertising:
Quote:
Many consumers feel bombarded with a nearly constant barrage of advertising messages, and CBS news estimates that an average person may see as many as 5,000 ads each day. Although consumers may consciously disregard these messages, advertisements register a subtle but persistent presence that could ultimately lead consumers to take action.
Well, I guess it goes back the old saying that: "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder"....because I personally think that it's kind of a hot mess.
There's just way too much going on in the poster. Plus, there's just way too much gray hair and gray beard hair that dominates the posters. Not very attractive, IMO.
However, let's say that what you said in your assesment is correct, Then how would you explain the lower domestic box office take for Smaug? Especially, since some of the other posters in this thread are saying that they like Smaug better than The Hobbit.(Although it would be nice to know what the national sentiment is for these two movies.)
Desolation of Smaug was better than An Unexpected Journey.
That's your opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by savoytruffle
The posters have nothing to do with the box office.
That's another opinion. Also, I think that I demonstrated in post #7 that movie posters probably have a subtle effect(either good or bad) on some movie goers' opinion and attendance of some movies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by savoytruffle
Also, this isn't a Lord of the Rings film. In fact, The Hobbit is totally different in tone than LOTR. Sure, you have the same crew/director/writers but I really wouldn't call it an LOTR film.
Technically, you're right. But in comparison to something like the Star War movies, The Hobbit movies are similar to Star Wars episodes I, II, and III, which tell the story of what leads up to episodes IV, V, and VI. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, they're all LOTR movies. Or 6 in one hand or a half of dozen in the other, you could also look at them all as Hobbit movies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by savoytruffle
You are probably right that it made less money because it is the second film of three. I'm pretty sure The Two Towers made less money than Fellowship or Return of the King.
No, The Two Towers($339,789,881) made more money than Fellowship($313,364,114).
Tome, TDOS seemed better, more action. I, very much, disliked the ending. That was very chicken-sh.t of Peter Jackson to end the movie, abruptly, right before an anticipated exciting action scene.
Hey, TurcoLoco, that's called a cliffhanger and which was probably made prominent by the night time soap operas of the 1980s such as Dallas and Knots Landing. Personally, I love them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TurcoLoco
I can tell the Hobbit series is way more "commercial" minded than LOTR was.
What do you mean?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TurcoLoco
After having already seen LOTR, it seems more of the same to me.
To me, TDOS seemed better, more action too.
That said, I, very much, disliked the ending.
That was very chicken-sh.t of Peter Jackson to end the movie, right before an anticipated action scene.
This is not a weekly show you arse, you don't end a movie like that, not even part 2 of a trilogy!
Have you ever heard of The Empire Strike Back where fans had to wait for 3 years(instead of just 1) to see how Han Solo was rescued?
Also, it had an awesome movie poster to represent the film.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
