ROTK- highest grossing film ever?

[nja 0]

After watching the preview featurette from ROTK on the Two Towers Special Features DVD, I couldn't help wondering if this wouldn't be the most successful film ever made to date.

if I understand correctly, Two Towers was the fifth highest grossing, more profitable than seventh highest Fellowship when middle films of trilogies are generally the least grossing of the three. Of couse it's hard to speak knowledgably when all you have is glimpses, but the previews from the ROTK battle scenes looked phenomenal.

I tried not to rig the poll question but am curious what others think- am I going overboard here?

Don't wait too long to vote; the poll ends Dec. 17th.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

This'll never beat Titanic. I think The Return of the King is too much a part of a franchise to be as big as that film.

- Marc

Danny Elfman - First Confrontation from Batman

[Marian Schedenig 8,200]

One of the best ever, possible, but not highest grossing. Titanic is way too far ahead, and I don't think so many more people will go see it than the first two either. Anyone who'll watch it without knowing the first two parts will be nothing more than confused, and while there's probably many people who watched FOTR on DVD and then went to see TTT theatrically, TTT didn't have THAT many more visitors.

Marian - who has his tickets in his pocket.

[Lurker 5]

It won't get a dime from me.

Neil

[ocelot 508]

And there you have it!

[nja 0]

It won't get a dime from me.

Neil

?

[MrScratch 294]

Nothing will ever beat the real highest grossing film of all time...

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted/

[Peio 0]

38 Cleopatra Fox   $421,912,144   $57,777,778  1963

Interesting. This is the biggest failure of all time?

Anyway, the ROTK trailer/preview was quite disappointing for me. Just more of the same we've already seen in TTT.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

This one made me laugh outloud.

At first I thought it was a joke, but then I realized you were serious.

My answer is no. ROTK will not be the biggest boxoffice hit of all time, and

it is likely not going to be the #1 hit of the year.

[nja 0]

This one made me laugh outloud.

At first I thought it was a joke, but then I realized you were serious.

My answer is no.  ROTK will not be the biggest boxoffice hit of all time, and it is likely not going to be the #1 hit of the year.

Always glad to bring joy to the lives of others . . .

So with Two Towers grossing $339,787,500 and Finding Nemo currently the year's highest at $333,843,390 . . .

you're saying that even as a trilogy conclusion, ROTK will likely underperform Two Towers or do you think that another film this year will go higher than both?

Just clarifying.

[Wojo 2,453]

It won't get a dime from me.

Not to be a smartass, Neil, but New Line isn't really going to miss your dime, what with all the people who insist on going to see a movie multiple times. That's where a good portion of ROTK's wealth will come from. My sister does it, my ex- does it, I know lots of people at this board do it, but I guess I either purport to have a good memory, or I'm so damn cheap I don't throw money at movies more than once.

I wager that ROTK will make more money than TTT did, and it'll certainly come out as the year's top grossing film, even though, yes, since it comes out around Christmas at the end of the year, you could argue that so much of the money is made in 2003 and the rest in 2004, so that Finding Nemo would still come out on top. Blah blah blah.

...

I left and came back, and lost my train of thought. Grr. Must be an Amtrak brain.

Oh. Assuming that all the people who saw the first one and liked it, and went on to see the second one, and liked it, too, you can expect that ROTK will make more money than either of the previous two. Plus, you can figure that if TTT made more money than ROTK (I don't know if it did, but hypothetically) it would be because of people missing the first in the theatre because they were late to the whole TLOTR bandwagon, and saw FOTR on video or DVD, thus went to see TTT in the theatre....THEN that effect has to be magnified for ROTK, for people who missed either of the first two in theatre (the British spelling is so much nicer, don't you think?). Then you've got the people who have been with TLOTR theatrically from the beginning, and then all those who have seen either or both installment multiple times, and you're all set to have ROTK hands down beat the previous two installments at the box office, easy as pie. Plus, if it's as good as everyone's predicting it to be...from PJ himself to Elijah Wood claiming it to be his favorite of the three, to the guy from Ain't It Cool News saying it becomes a major tearjerker about 40 minutes into it (basically since the proper ending of the TTT book becomes the beginning of ROTK the film, opening the last movie with a cliffhanger instead of ending the second with it, which was dumb because i thought TTT was missing something, ROTK has enough, but since it's all but been confirmed that there will be no scouring in ROTK, i guess ROTK does need beefed up)....wow, i'm on something tonight...if it's THAT good, then maybe even I will pay to go see it twice.

But will it be the number one movie of all time?

Hell no, not even close. Let's look at those films, shall we, box office titans that at any given time were the leaders of their generation, and granted may have fallen due to time and inflation, but still.......Gone with the Wind...The Godfather...Jaws...ET...Titanic.............Return of the King? Sorry, but no dice.

Now, if you wanna change the rules after the bets have been cast, so to speak, and rule that "The Lord of the Rings" is one giant movie released over a period of three years....then it wins and can never be topped, unless you consider that "Star Wars" is one giant movie released over a period of 6 years TWICE, 22 years apart, not to mention the initial release beefed up for a re-release, then IT takes the cake. But then you have to allow for Star Trek over 23 years, and Rocky over 14 (with VI on the way ), and then certainly James Bond will have to have a piece of the action....

[Wojo 2,453]

Besides, Titanic is a sappy love movie with the star power attraction of Leo DiCaprio (I went for Winslet and got my wish twice during that film, but that's me), and thus attracts that younger crowd of adolescent girls who love sappy romance flicks, as well as the older more sophisticated crowd that appreciates a good epic/disaster film. The Lord of the Rings films do not have that kind of love/romance plot, and thus aren't necessarily that appealing, and any attempt to introduce that kind of Titanic-type plot by overemphasizing the importance of a "love triangle" between Arwen, Aragorn, and Eowyn (wow, that's two of the three main female leads in the film, though I personally think Rosie the Hobbit is the cutest) should've been shot down (movie posters, anyone?, this film's about Frodo, not Arwen). Personally, I know someone who loves movies like Titanic, but thought that TTT was the most boring film she ever saw, and while she saw it in the theatre to appease her bf, she won't go see ROTK for fear of dying of boredom, or something like that. People like that won't see ROTK, and won't push ROTK past Titanic.

If it does, well....I guess I'll have to make a hat out of chocolate, put it on my head, and then eat my hat.

[MrScratch 294]

Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money! Money!

Who cares? A films gross is absolutely no indication of a films value or quality. And it sickens me when studios boast about their films being a 200 million or 300 million dollar grossing film... sure, any cgi-fest piece of shit that is marketed to us until we vomit and also costs $8 (or more!) a head will make a lot of money.

[UCFKevin 0]

Nah. It wont' do THAT much.

[hitman20 0]

*It'll make money, but highest grossing film ever? No. Not with Titanic where it's at. Now it may end up becoming one of the highest grossing Trilogies (the Lord of the Rings), but as for Return of the King doing it on it's own, I highly doubt that. I'll say that it'll make about 340 million, and more in DVD sales, but thats where I see it at. I can probably say the same about the Matrix Revolutions, but I pretty much know that the Matrix Trilogy will probably be the Highest grossing "R" rated trilogy ever.

*I do see these movies as a great opportunity to pick up two great scores, by Shore and Davis!

[banthapoodoo 0]

Just my two cents... I think ROTK will be big but might not even outgross "Nemo". It seems that people are more interessed in seeing the films on DVD than in the theater (a shame given their epic scope). I guess at home they can pause or stop at their leisure. Just look at the sales figures for "Towers" on DVD! There was actually a line at the Circuit City near my home.

There has also been a lot of buzz that ROTK will win the Oscar for Best Picture this year. I concur and really hope that it does. I expect that ROTK will be a fitting end to one of the most spectacular achievements in cinematic history.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Well, I think one of two things is going to happen at the 2004 Oscar Ceremonies. Either The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King goes on a downright Oscar sweep and takes home A LOT of those shiny golden statues, or the Academy will once again ignore this film because it's a sequel (even though it not really is) and because it was a box office hit (which it'll surely be) and another X-million people will totally lose faith in them gits.

- Marc, who was very surprised when A Beautiful Mind beat FOTR for Best Picture in 2002 and when the new Best Original Score rule was announced this year.

James Horner - Attack on Murron from Braveheart

[Marian Schedenig 8,200]

- Marc, who was very surprised when A Beautiful Mind beat FOTR for Best Picture in 2002 and when the new Best Original Score rule was announced this year.

I admit I haven't seen A Beautiful Mind, but I find it hard to imagine that anything deserved the Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar more than FOTR.

But from what I've seen in the preview, even the nominations should prove a problem with ROTK. I still want to see McKellen get an Oscar, but Mortensen seems to have some wickedly brilliant acting in the final movie too. And though I haven't seen any Bilbo clips from ROTK yet, I'm sure Holm more than deserves a Best Supporting Actor.

Marian - expecting none of them will win.

[MrScratch 294]

I admit I haven't seen A Beautiful Mind, but I find it hard to imagine that anything deserved the Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar more than FOTR.

But from what I've seen in the preview, even the nominations should prove a problem with ROTK. I still want to see McKellen get an Oscar, but Mortensen seems to have some wickedly brilliant acting in the final movie too. And though I haven't seen any Bilbo clips from ROTK yet, I'm sure Holm more than deserves a Best Supporting Actor.

Marian - expecting none of them will win.

I felt FOTR was a lock for Best Screenplay as well. I would love it if ROTK took home some of the top prizes, Picture, Director, Actor, Supporting Actor. Although he plays the title character Mortensen just isn't really the lead, LOTR doesn't really have a lead character. If any, it would be Frodo. But the films focus on Aragorn just as much as Frodo, if not more. So there isn't a prominent lead to garner a nomination. There would have to be virtually no competition at the Oscars for ROTK to sweep.

I predict ROTK will go the way of TTT and be nominated for Best Picture and few other technical awards and will win 2 or 3 of the technical awards and nothing else.

I hope I'm dead wrong though.

[Marian Schedenig 8,200]

Aragorn certainly isn't *the* lead character, but then the whole movie uses an ensemble cast anyway. If there's one main character, it would be Frodo in the movies, but there are several points which have lead people to argue that in the books, it's actually Sam.

Marian - who thinks McKellen deserves award nominations for nearly everything he does.

[Wojo 2,453]

A film's gross is absolutely no indication of a film's value or quality.  And it sickens me when studios boast about their film's being a 200 million or 300 million dollar grossing film... sure, any cgi-fest piece of shit that is marketed to us until we vomit and also costs $8 (or more!) a head will make a lot of money.

I could not have said it better myself. Keep raising ticket prices and take inflation into effect, and ultimately every movie could gross more than the previous one. I think instead of financial revenue earned by films, they should just take into account actual number of heads that went to go see the film; it's just as easy to calculate as gross money. That way we could effectively determine popularity of success of films, and compare them to older ones like Jaws and Gone with the Wind and The Godfather, even though sociological and cultural conditions have changed so much over time. Stadiums don't tell you how much money they rake in from ticket sales and food sales at each sporting event, or even how many tickets they sold beforehand; they tell you the actual attendance that day, counting the number of people going through the turnstiles, which equals the number of ticket stubs that end up going into the landfills. [if they told us the $$ they rake in each day, it'd be sickening, players' salaries enough is, but that's another topic for another forum entirely.] So thus should it be with movies, but alas, in an industry run by greed and the need to saturate the market with crap and clones and utter turkeys of movies, it is not to be.

Attack on Murron from Braveheart

I about went nuts when I saw the particular trailer for Fellowship of the Ring that featured that particular cue, it fit the mood perfectly, and is probably my favorite cue from Braveheart other than the one where Robert the Bruce rallies Wallace's troops at the end.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Yeah it's cool, isn't it. They also used that track in the trailer for Titanic (now there's a coincidence ).

Anyway, remember that Finding Nemo still has more money coming. It still has to be released in most of Europe.

- Marc, who has to wait until November 27th at least to see this film.

John Williams - Destruction Of Krypton from Superman

[Marian Schedenig 8,200]

Yeah, Nemo comes out here so late, I won't even bother seeing it at a real theatre. Instead, I'll spend my money on the DVD and watch it at my home theatre.

Marian - wondering why Pixar movies always have these extra-long delays.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

There ya go. It's no suprise Pixar's films make more money on HE than in the theatres.

- Marc, who thinks it's rediculous an obvious summer movie comes out in Holland only a month before christmas.

James Horner - Attack on Murron from Braveheart (again... )

[metaphor123 0]

It certainly won't be, but I think it could make $400 million+ in the US market. After all, even films of lesser quality have made more (Spider-Man, while not bad but certainly not great, made a healthy $400 million, and Episode I, one of the worst films I've never seen, made $430 million).

Of course I agree that a film's popularity is more accurately measured by adjusted gross, where box office champions like 'Gone with the Wind' 'The Sound of Music' (which was in general release for four years) and 'The Ten Commandments' come out ahead of the pack.

[Ren 75]

I'll have to agree, it'll be big, but not THE biggest.

[Lurker 5]

It'll blow everything else out of the water

I agree with the first two words.

Neil

[Ren 75]

stop it Neil!

[ocelot 508]

hahahahahahahahaha, you have to admit, that was funny!!!

[QMM 4]

As much as I love the franchise and the movies and that I want it to be the biggest grossing movie of all time, it probably wont make it.

Max=Might go to the marathon showing of all 3 movies encompassing over 9 hours of movie time!

[Justin 2]

hahahahahahahahaha, you have to admit, that was funny!!!

Do not.

Justin

[nja 0]

It'll blow everything else out of the water

I agree with the first two words.

Neil

Now that was a comment just waiting to happen.

[QMM 4]

What's there to say, Neil hates the LOTR (movies)

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

Really i dont think it will. Some people would have been dissapointed by FOTR, others by TTT (this one is an ADAPTATION with capitals as TLW was...) and then ROTK will be a derivative from that adaptation with will withdraw more people.

It will get lost of money anyway.

Luke, who only will see it becasue he saw the other two at the cinema....

[Marian Schedenig 8,200]

(this one is an ADAPTATION with capitals as TLW was...)

TLW - I haven't read the novel, but considering that the only two recurring characters in the second movie die in the first book, there must be some rather big differences.

The LOTR movies on the other hand stick very closely to the book most of the time. I'd say far close than the first JP movie did.

Marian - who thinks JP the movie sucks compared to JP the book.

[QMM 4]

TLW - I haven't read the novel, but considering that the only two recurring characters in the second movie die in the first book, there must be some rather big differences.

I know its weird, I read the first book and Malcolm "dies" in the end. But in the second book he says that he had a really bad injury when he was on the island. And malcolm stays alive throughout the entire book. They should have just adopted the entire TLW book because that was SOOO much better then the movie. It would have been really cool to see Levine, the carnotaurs, and all the other cool moments in the book.

[ocelot 508]

uhuh, and that dinosaur that was like a chameleon in the end, now that was scary in the book!

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

(this one is an ADAPTATION with capitals as TLW was...)

TLW - I haven't read the novel, but considering that the only two recurring characters in the second movie die in the first book, there must be some rather big differences.

The LOTR movies on the other hand stick very closely to the book most of the time. I'd say far close than the first JP movie did.

Marian - who thinks JP the movie sucks compared to JP the book.

Not really, Felowship only did. TTT and consequently ROTK do not (there are at least as 'bad' as JP movie.

[QMM 4]

uhuh, and that dinosaur that was like a chameleon in the end, now that was scary in the book!

If they had that in the movie, it would have been SO much better. That scene was so cool in the book.

[Marian Schedenig 8,200]

Not really, Felowship only did. TTT and consequently ROTK do not (there are at least as 'bad' as JP movie.

FOTR had some minor changes, like substituting Arwen for Glorfindel and, more annoyingly, having her take Frodo over the ford.

TTT differed more from the book than FOTR, with the added middle section that served to include the important Arwen/Elrond stuff (not in the book like that, but still and essential part of the story) but also meant some added annoying Aragorn bits. The other major change was having the Elves at Helm's Deep (still not convinced about that), and Haldir's death. Oh, and the Ents' sudden change of mind is something I do have a problem with, although the rest of their story bit was pretty much directly out of the book.

But Haldir isn't important to the rest of the story, unlike Hammond and Malcolm in JP, whose deaths are important aspects of the basic story, particularly Malcolm's morphine phantasies. Plus the entire ending was changed, and even one of the best action sequences of the book was taken out (the waterfall chase). They also dropped the majority of the science stuff, which was important to the book (of course they couldn't have included it all, but at least some more of it), left out the whole Wu (?) subplot, and completely changed the personality of major characters - Hammond is nothing like in the book at all.

Therefore I think TTT is far closer to the book than JP, even the newly written sequence mainly serves to include stuff that was in the book, but not in the main narrative that could directly be transferred to the movie.

And as for ROTK, it should be pretty much 1:1 to the book, except for the missing Scouring chapter.

Marian - who thinks Sphere is much closer to the book than JP, though it still has some problems.

[QMM 4]

JP will never be as good as the book because they left out Malcolm's affinity for morphine AND his fantasies.

[Morlock 11]

Jackson made Aragorn the hero, with Legolas his trusty sidekick and Gimli the comic relief. Tolkein's hero was Frodo. Thus, the movie abandons the heart of the book.

Also Arwen had no place in the movie. I despise Liv tyler and her suicide-compelling voice.

[QMM 4]

Suicide compelling? It's not that bad

[Morlock 11]

I beg to differ. Also- I forgot to mention Elijah Wood, who is one of the worst actors ever, especialy in this movie.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Whinewhinewhinebeerbeerbeer....

Stefancos-

[Marian Schedenig 8,200]

Jackson made Aragorn the hero, with Legolas his trusty sidekick and Gimli the comic relief. Tolkein's hero was Frodo. Thus, the movie abandons the heart of the book.

Gimli -> agreed. Legolas isn't very different from the book. Aragorn IS one of the main heroes in the book, heck, he even has the third part of the story named after him. Frodo certainly isn't the only hero in the book, and when we come to the main character, there are good arguments for why it may be Sam, not Frodo.

Also Arwen had no place in the movie. I despise Liv tyler and her suicide-compelling voice.

I strongly have to disagree here. Arwen IS one of the most important characters in the book, even though she doesn't feature a lot in the actual story. But she is essential to one of the major themes, and she has an entire appendix devoted to her (and Aragorn).

Marian - who thinks Tyler has the best Elvish voice in the movies.

[QMM 4]

While I'm not a big fan of him, I do think this was one of Wood's better performances and I certainly dont hate him for the part.

Max-Who still remembers Wood in FLIPPER

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

to the movie.

And as for ROTK, it should be pretty much 1:1 to the book, except for the missing Scouring chapter.

Yeah well... not counting the missing chapters from TTT that will be in ROTK and that Anduril was made in FOTR...

[Melange 446]

ROTK- highest grossing film ever?

I dont know. But everytime i see ROTK abbreviations, i think it's Return of the Jedi, at first glance. Catches me everytime.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Yeah well... not counting the missing chapters from TTT that will be in ROTK and that Anduril was made in FOTR...

Those are hardly huge changes, and Lord Of The Rings is really one book anyway, just divided into 6 (not 3) parts.

Stefancos-