If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Den Of Geek)   Dwarf singing doesn't come cheap: Budget for The Hobbit passes half-billion mark and has already doubled the cost of Lord of the Rings trilogy   (denofgeek.com) divider line 82
    More: Silly, lotr, The Hobbit, hobbits, sings, costs, trilogy  
•       •       •

1524 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 08 Oct 2013 at 9:36 AM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



82 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-08 09:22:17 AM
Bullshiat Hollywood (or New Zealand) accounting. movies don't cost that much. It's in the studio's best interest to report a loss for every film for various reasons.
 
2013-10-08 09:42:32 AM
The immense popularity of The Lord Of The Rings trilogy has earned Jackson some freedom, as well as ensuring a sizeable built-in fan base which has helped The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey to take in excess of $1 billion at the global box office.

It's fair to guess that the other two instalments will take a similar amount, and when you factor in home video sales, which will inevitably see various releases over the coming years, Warner will ultimately make a very impressive profit.


So in other words, move along.....nothing to see here.
 
2013-10-08 09:48:17 AM
They really need to get the guy who sang all the songs in the Rankin & Bass cartoon to sing some for the movie.
 
2013-10-08 09:53:39 AM
The first installment of "The Hobbit" sucked.  Hopefully the other $300 million they've spent creates the sense of real peril for the characters.
 
2013-10-08 09:55:42 AM
Interesting that it costs so much more though.

It says the special effects budget is higher but CGI costs should have gotten lower with better software and cheaper computing power?

Days of shooting and so should be similar?
 
2013-10-08 09:57:16 AM
It's a Trilogy right?  They spent over $200 million making World War Z, $220 on Avavngers, so I would guess that $200 million is the going rate for a Hollywood blockbuster.

So, $561 million for a trilogy saves you $39 million.  It's a bargain.
 
2013-10-08 10:00:19 AM

rekraFlatoT: Interesting that it costs so much more though.

It says the special effects budget is higher but CGI costs should have gotten lower with better software and cheaper computing power?



that's assuming the same exact amount of CGI is being used and not accounting for over a decade of economic inflation.
 
2013-10-08 10:03:36 AM
Presumably it's all the special effects shots they need to do to make the dwarves look dwarfish next to Gandalf, Elves, and other non-stumpy people.
 
2013-10-08 10:07:16 AM

drewbob21: The first installment of "The Hobbit" sucked.  Hopefully the other $300 million they've spent creates the sense of real peril for the characters.


Yeah, that. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was a fun watch, but it had no real sense of stakes for the characters
 
2013-10-08 10:08:52 AM
They could have saved a shiatload of money by just tossing some barrels into a river, but noooooooo.
 
2013-10-08 10:13:59 AM
maybe if they didn't keep making up extra characters it would keep the costs down
 
2013-10-08 10:16:09 AM

drewbob21: The first installment of "The Hobbit" sucked.  Hopefully the other $300 million they've spent creates the sense of real peril for the characters.


Nope.  It went into making Orlando Bloom put the Legolas suit on again when he wasn't even in the original book.

Trailers make him look like the focus of half the next movie.  It's going to be terrible.
 
2013-10-08 10:16:09 AM

LucklessWonder: drewbob21: The first installment of "The Hobbit" sucked.  Hopefully the other $300 million they've spent creates the sense of real peril for the characters.

Yeah, that. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was a fun watch, but it had no real sense of stakes for the characters


the first movie is actually pretty faithful to the book in most areas and stops around page 60 or so of the novel.

what the heck did you want them to do??
 
2013-10-08 10:16:37 AM
Oh God, you just know the next film will consist of Lee Pace sneering at dwarves for the first hour and Benedict Cumberbatch yelling at them in the last hour.  Not sure what happens during the middle hour.  I hope it's not comedy relief from that stoner wizard again.
 
2013-10-08 10:17:51 AM

Mugato: Bullshiat Hollywood (or New Zealand) accounting. movies don't cost that much. It's in the studio's best interest to report a loss for every film for various reasons.


1) The marketing certainly costs that much. A 30 second spot in a large market can easily cost $7,500. For a major blockbuster like this they're running ads for three weeks in every market.

2) I'm sure they're packing some of the studio's capital costs into the films budget to keep them of their books, but when you shoot for 226 days, that's a lot of salaries being paid for a while.
 
2013-10-08 10:23:19 AM
These movies are kind of fun, but I'm really starting to lose appreciation for the "classic" style of storytelling where the heroes are always good-looking, brave, and noble, the villains are ugly monsters, and sex doesn't seem to exist in the world (not just the act itself but as a motivating factor). I realize The Hobbit is supposed to be more of a children's story, maybe it just should have been a Disney cartoon.
 
2013-10-08 10:32:46 AM
Has the first part come out yet?
 
2013-10-08 10:33:39 AM

rekraFlatoT: Interesting that it costs so much more though.

It says the special effects budget is higher but CGI costs should have gotten lower with better software and cheaper computing power?

Days of shooting and so should be similar?


12 years = ~50% increase just for inflation, so that means $281m * 1.5 = $422m in todays prices.
 
2013-10-08 10:48:23 AM
I thought the first portion of the trilogy was decent.  It wasn't a masterpiece, but I found it enjoyable.  I didn't expect a whole lot, anyway, given that the best parts of the Hobbit would necessarily come later on in the plot.  Smaug and the Battle of the Five Armies are what I'm really looking forward to see.
 
2013-10-08 10:54:33 AM

browntimmy: These movies are kind of fun, but I'm really starting to lose appreciation for the "classic" style of storytelling where the heroes are always good-looking, brave, and noble, the villains are ugly monsters, and sex doesn't seem to exist in the world (not just the act itself but as a motivating factor). I realize The Hobbit is supposed to be more of a children's story, maybe it just should have been a Disney cartoon.


Not getting to see Sam laying the pipe to Rosie ruined LotR for me.
 
2013-10-08 11:01:30 AM

Wellon Dowd: browntimmy: These movies are kind of fun, but I'm really starting to lose appreciation for the "classic" style of storytelling where the heroes are always good-looking, brave, and noble, the villains are ugly monsters, and sex doesn't seem to exist in the world (not just the act itself but as a motivating factor). I realize The Hobbit is supposed to be more of a children's story, maybe it just should have been a Disney cartoon.

Not getting to see Sam laying the pipe to Rosie ruined LotR for me.


Say it!

Say it!

Saaaayyy it!

       Potatoes!

That's my Rosie!
 
2013-10-08 11:13:18 AM
The starving children of the world are really enjoying these movies, so that's a definite bonus.
 
2013-10-08 11:21:47 AM
Complain all you want, I consider that the signing was a crucial part of the movie.

I distinctly remember sitting in the movie theater, my bladder almost full and waiting for the most appropriate moment to go, as there was no way I could hold it for the remaining 1.5-2 hours.
And then I heard the first sung lines. There was no hesitation, no questioning. THAT was the ideal moment to go to the restroom!
 
2013-10-08 11:25:10 AM
I'm really looking forward to the White Council battling the necromancer, but that'll probably be in the third movie.

/Legolas? Really?
 
2013-10-08 11:28:07 AM

browntimmy: These movies are kind of fun, but I'm really starting to lose appreciation for the "classic" style of storytelling where the heroes are always good-looking, brave, and noble, the villains are ugly monsters, and  sex doesn't seem to exist in the world (not just the act itself but as a motivating factor). I realize The Hobbit is supposed to be more of a children's story, maybe it just should have been a Disney cartoon.


If you don't want these traits in your heroes, I'd watch The Sword and The Sorcerer and Deathstalker.
 
2013-10-08 11:28:36 AM
Three movies of people walking to get a farking ring. Plus a dragon and singing.
 
2013-10-08 11:30:24 AM
Big. Fat.  MEH.

The "adaptation" of the trilogy (i.e. meandering hodgepodge of names, places, and events all mixed with heretofore unknown pseudo-shakespearean dialogue) was so fantastic I've pledged to never give a steaming gnarly rat's ass about any of Peter Jackson's projects.

gnosis301: They really need to get the guy who sang all the songs in the Rankin & Bass cartoon to sing some for the movie.


Some years back I used to post on Ain't It Cool News (no, I ain't proud of it), and one of the toadies (reviewers?) was visiting the set of LotR in return for gushing over it, kinda the norm for that site, y'know.  I asked this dude if he got someone on set to sing "Frodo of the Nine Fingers, and the Ring of Doom".

He got all pissy about it.
 
2013-10-08 11:41:18 AM
For all the complaints about the transformation of the simple book to three movies; my two sons loved every minute of the first film. They were too young for LOTR in the theaters, but we have watched them at home now. They loved the narrative of dwarves, elves, orcs, goblins, etc. The Hobbit will let them enjoy three more films of the world. It also has led to them reading the books, and discussing why movies and books some time differ. The singing is important to the Hobbit, loved it in the old animated version, like it in the new film as well.
 
2013-10-08 11:42:06 AM
The other thing to take into account is salaries. When the first trilogy was filmed almost all the actors were unknown or little-known. It's now a decade later and the unknowns all now have careers, so their agents demanded more money. I believe even McKellan got a pay hike and Chris Lee got a truckload to smooth over bad feelings.
 
2013-10-08 11:46:35 AM

ristst: The "adaptation" of the trilogy (i.e. meandering hodgepodge of names, places, and events all mixed with heretofore unknown pseudo-shakespearean dialogue) was so fantastic I've pledged to never give a steaming gnarly rat's ass about any of Peter Jackson's projects.


let's see YOUR LOTr adaptation.

you farking lit fanboys.  The movies are amazing.  The books are good too, but there was a lot of fat to trim.
 
2013-10-08 11:50:27 AM

Dwight_Yeast: Chris Lee got a truckload to smooth over bad feelings


Whats he sore about? I think he was one of, if not the best parts of LoTR
 
2013-10-08 11:51:19 AM
Isnt The Hobbit trilogy actually containing 2 books in the world of Middle Earth? I know its mainly the Hobbit but isnt The Silmarillion also referenced several times through the first movie. I never did get to read that book. But my mother and brother said they were scenes and story plots from the book in the Hobbit part 1.
 
2013-10-08 12:02:50 PM
I felt the marketing strategy used in the latest trailer for The Desolation of Smaug was to make the movie seem Game of Thrones-y.
 
2013-10-08 12:03:14 PM

yves0010: Isnt The Hobbit trilogy actually containing 2 books in the world of Middle Earth? I know its mainly the Hobbit but isnt The Silmarillion also referenced several times through the first movie. I never did get to read that book. But my mother and brother said they were scenes and story plots from the book in the Hobbit part 1.


Not just referenced. The white orc Azog, for example, isn't in the Hobbit. He lives and dies in a battle long before the Hobbit and is only mentioned in background materials. They resurrected him and added him to the movies to help extend a pretty short book into a trilogy of movies.
 
2013-10-08 12:04:47 PM

yves0010: Isnt The Hobbit trilogy actually containing 2 books in the world of Middle Earth? I know its mainly the Hobbit but isnt The Silmarillion also referenced several times through the first movie. I never did get to read that book. But my mother and brother said they were scenes and story plots from the book in the Hobbit part 1.


Yes.  Jackson is taking advantage of the reams of material that Tolkien wrote later to make up for the fact that The Hobbit is basically just a lame childrens book.

/haters got to hate
 
2013-10-08 12:07:07 PM

Madbassist1: Whats he sore about? I think he was one of, if not the best parts of LoTR


Lee was pissed that he was cut out of the theatre release of RotK.
 
2013-10-08 12:08:37 PM

odinsposse: yves0010: Isnt The Hobbit trilogy actually containing 2 books in the world of Middle Earth? I know its mainly the Hobbit but isnt The Silmarillion also referenced several times through the first movie. I never did get to read that book. But my mother and brother said they were scenes and story plots from the book in the Hobbit part 1.

Not just referenced. The white orc Azog, for example, isn't in the Hobbit. He lives and dies in a battle long before the Hobbit and is only mentioned in background materials. They resurrected him and added him to the movies to help extend a pretty short book into a trilogy of movies.


Thank you. Learn something new every day.

gingerjet: yves0010: Isnt The Hobbit trilogy actually containing 2 books in the world of Middle Earth? I know its mainly the Hobbit but isnt The Silmarillion also referenced several times through the first movie. I never did get to read that book. But my mother and brother said they were scenes and story plots from the book in the Hobbit part 1.

Yes.  Jackson is taking advantage of the reams of material that Tolkien wrote later to make up for the fact that The Hobbit is basically just a lame childrens book.

/haters got to hate


Love the Hobbit when I was kid. Then again, my mother read the entire series to my brothers and me while we were on summer vacation. Hobbit one year, Fellowship the next and so forth.

/Had no issue with the movie and am looking forward to the next two.
//Not buying the blue rays until the extended edition comes out with all the cut scenes from the film.
 
2013-10-08 12:17:07 PM
Loved the LOTR movie trilogy.

Looked forward to the Hobbit and finally saw it this week aaaaaand: meh...  Don't know if I'll bother watching the rest.
 
2013-10-08 12:20:32 PM

rekraFlatoT: Interesting that it costs so much more though.

It says the special effects budget is higher but CGI costs should have gotten lower with better software and cheaper computing power?

Days of shooting and so should be similar?


BUT, PJ is shooting this in 48 FPS. That means all the CGI is rendered out in 48 FPS. He effectively doubled the amount of render time for every shot in the movie.
 
2013-10-08 12:24:19 PM

aniyn: I'm really looking forward to the White Council battling the necromancer, but that'll probably be in the third movie.


Yup.  Should be good.  Tolkein has few details on this so Peter Jackson has quite a bit of license here.  My hope is that the White Council calls in all the wizards for the battle, including the two blue wizards.  Maybe one or both of them could die.  Probably won't happen since they didn't introduce them in the first installment.


\/Legolas? Really?

Um, why not?  They are going right to his home after all and Legolas' dad is a fairly important character in the book.
 
2013-10-08 12:27:52 PM

gingerjet: Yes. Jackson is taking advantage of the reams of material that Tolkien wrote later to make up for the fact that The Hobbit is basically just a lame childrens book.

/haters got to hate


I'll give Tolkien a lot of credit for creativity and thoroughness, but his writing style was awful. 250 pages written the way you would tell a story to a small child. A small child hasn't got the attention span for that, and I'm surprised anyone else has the patience. And nearly every chapter is the same: our heroes do something stupid and get in to trouble and at the last minute some arbitrary force - Tom Bombardillo, Giant Eagles, Gandalf, or whatever - shows up to save them. Scholarly creative genius, horrible writer and storyteller.
 
2013-10-08 12:33:07 PM

frepnog: ristst: The "adaptation" of the trilogy (i.e. meandering hodgepodge of names, places, and events all mixed with heretofore unknown pseudo-shakespearean dialogue) was so fantastic I've pledged to never give a steaming gnarly rat's ass about any of Peter Jackson's projects.

let's see YOUR LOTr adaptation.

you farking lit fanboys.  The movies are amazing.  The books are good too, but there was a lot of fat to trim.


You have YOUR opinion, I have MINE.  Funny how you call me a fanboy when you're actually describing yourself.

/you Peter Jackson fans are *so* easy to rile
//cry moar!
 
2013-10-08 12:33:14 PM

browneye: The immense popularity of The Lord Of The Rings trilogy has earned Jackson some freedom, as well as ensuring a sizeable built-in fan base which has helped The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey to take in excess of $1 billion at the global box office.

It's fair to guess that the other two instalments will take a similar amount, and when you factor in home video sales, which will inevitably see various releases over the coming years, Warner will ultimately make a very impressive profit.

So in other words, move along.....nothing to see here.


Came here to say this. So apparently The Hobbit has already paid for the entire trilogy. A couple more like that and there should be enough billions left over to start 5 movie adaptation of The Silmarillion.

/would die happy in a theater seat watching the entire 11 movie extended edition 44 hour marathon
 
2013-10-08 12:35:22 PM
frepnog:

what the heck did you want them to do??

you have to understand... on Fark, every movie sucks and there are at least 1000 Farkers who could have made it better.
 
2013-10-08 12:36:33 PM

NewWorldDan: I'll give Tolkien a lot of credit for creativity and thoroughness, but his writing style was awful. 250 pages written the way you would tell a story to a small child. A small child hasn't got the attention span for that, and I'm surprised anyone else has the patience.


Audiences didn't have the attention span of a crack addict when Tolkien was writing those books, which is why millions of adolescents read his books and then passed them down for generations.

I do agree that his books probably wouldn't fare as well if they were released in an age when children are playing with their Kindle Fires while 97 consecutive hours of cartoon programming queued up on Netflix  is running in the background.
 
2013-10-08 12:45:51 PM

NewWorldDan: I'll give Tolkien a lot of credit for creativity and thoroughness, but his writing style was awful. 250 pages written the way you would tell a story to a small child. A small child hasn't got the attention span for that, and I'm surprised anyone else has the patience. And nearly every chapter is the same: our heroes do something stupid and get in to trouble and at the last minute some arbitrary force - Tom Bombardillo, Giant Eagles, Gandalf, or whatever - shows up to save them. Scholarly creative genius, horrible writer and storyteller.


I don't like The Hobbit very much for that reason - it's written aimed at like, 6-year olds.  It'd make a good book to read to young kids a chapter or two at a time before bed, but as an adult, I feel no desire to read it again.

LOTR wasn't nearly as patronising (although it's still there, it's not out there slapping you in the face with its cock every page), so is quite good to read through every now and again.

The Hobbit's tone is to blame for a lot of the things I didn't like about the movie.  The gap between the appendix-sourced stuff that was fleshed out by PJ and co is an adult movie, the original-sourced stuff is a kid's movie, and they mesh like My Little Pony and Breaking Bad.
 
2013-10-08 12:51:32 PM
Well, The Hobbit is the better story, so it deserves more money for development.
 
2013-10-08 12:56:58 PM

ristst: frepnog: ristst: The "adaptation" of the trilogy (i.e. meandering hodgepodge of names, places, and events all mixed with heretofore unknown pseudo-shakespearean dialogue) was so fantastic I've pledged to never give a steaming gnarly rat's ass about any of Peter Jackson's projects.

let's see YOUR LOTr adaptation.

you farking lit fanboys.  The movies are amazing.  The books are good too, but there was a lot of fat to trim.

You have YOUR opinion, I have MINE.  Funny how you call me a fanboy when you're actually describing yourself.

/you Peter Jackson fans are *so* easy to rile
//cry moar!


I am no Jackson fanboy.  I enjoy the films. I don't think Jackson is infalliable and I don't think the movies, while pretty great, are as great as they could have been.  They are however pretty damned good films and people that biatch about them or talk about how they sucked are freaking ridiculous.

I for one wondered how he was going to make the Hobbit 3 damn movies - until I saw the first film and realized that it was SO close to the book, that the first film actually stopped at around page 60 of the novel.  It is more than easy to make 3 movies when you stick that closely to the story in the novel.  Yes he added some things, but nothing crazy and the movie was fantastic.
 
2013-10-08 12:59:41 PM

DemonEater: NewWorldDan: I'll give Tolkien a lot of credit for creativity and thoroughness, but his writing style was awful. 250 pages written the way you would tell a story to a small child. A small child hasn't got the attention span for that, and I'm surprised anyone else has the patience. And nearly every chapter is the same: our heroes do something stupid and get in to trouble and at the last minute some arbitrary force - Tom Bombardillo, Giant Eagles, Gandalf, or whatever - shows up to save them. Scholarly creative genius, horrible writer and storyteller.

I don't like The Hobbit very much for that reason - it's written aimed at like, 6-year olds.  It'd make a good book to read to young kids a chapter or two at a time before bed, but as an adult, I feel no desire to read it again.

LOTR wasn't nearly as patronising (although it's still there, it's not out there slapping you in the face with its cock every page), so is quite good to read through every now and again.

The Hobbit's tone is to blame for a lot of the things I didn't like about the movie.  The gap between the appendix-sourced stuff that was fleshed out by PJ and co is an adult movie, the original-sourced stuff is a kid's movie, and they mesh like My Little Pony and Breaking Bad.


How so?  Jackson is adapting the Hobbit tale to thematically and stylistically fit with his original trilogy.  He isn't making a kid's movie, he is making a family film based on a children's novel.  Once the films are completed, you will be able to watch all 6 films together as one large story and it will all fit.
 
2013-10-08 01:12:12 PM

DemonEater: The Hobbit's tone is to blame for a lot of the things I didn't like about the movie.  The gap between the appendix-sourced stuff that was fleshed out by PJ and co is an adult movie, the original-sourced stuff is a kid's movie, and they mesh like My Little Pony and Breaking Bad.


s3.amazonaws.com

"Twilight, we need to cook."
"Cook?"
"Yeah, the party is tomorrow, we need 500 cupcakes."

/you begged for it.
 
Displayed 50 of 82 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report