I believe this had more to do with HP3 opening during the crowded summer movie season than with Dumbledore being recast. Harry Potter 4, which went back to the November release date of the first two films, shot passed HP2 & 3 to become the second highest grossing film in the franchise.

They don't have the rights to the material in the Similarion, so they can't use anything from it. Any expanded material would either have to be from the LOTR books or invented.

There are likely several reasons HP3 didn't do as well as its predecessors and sucessor, but my point was that you can't say that the switch in Dumbledores didn't hurt the franchise "at all," like Anubis2005X claimed, since the franchise took a noticable dip when the change occured.

No, I'm agree that they can't be compared.

Jackson made great movies out of a story that was audience-tested and beloved for decades. The story itself was proven solid, all he just needed to (and did) execute it well.

Lucas' stories went out there untested, unproven, and yeah... some didn't work.

If Jackson's up for it, I'm up for it. I'd like to see Ian McKellen back as well.

they can lengthen it, shorten it, whatever. If it sucks I'll wipe it from my conciousness and enjoy the current LOTR Trilogy just the same.

My enthusiasm for this project will drop significantly if Jackson isn't aboard though.

'Noticeable dip'? The third film's domestic box office receipts were a scant $12 million less (less than 5% difference) than the second film, which did suffer a large dip over the first film, despite having all of the original actors, and the original director as well. Even when comparing the worldwide box office, the drop over the first three films was fairly consistent, with no comparatively significant dip for the third film.

I don't see how that offers any kind of evidence that the actor change had any effect at all. The change in director, being the third film in a series, and the summer release were much more likely causes of any perceived dip.

I didn't say it definitely did, and I said that other elements probably factored into it as well. All I'm saying is that you can't say the change didn't have any effect for certain.

I'm not seeing this being done anytime before 2010. As far as them not doing it?

As far as the studios not doing it? Imagine a stack of money the size of the Chrysler Building and someone saying, "Let's leave that alone."

Two-parter? That means more time for the musical numbers! :banana:

The greatest adventure is what lies ahead...

Not long ago I was watching my LOTR DVDs and it occurred to me that it would really neat if they would make some direct-to-DVD animated features based on some of Tolkien's other writings and the history of Middle Earth... one about the creations of the races (which would delve into Tolkien's complex cosmology), one about the Silmarils, another about Luthien and Beren, one about Glorfindel and the Balrog, etc. I'd love to see those done in a lush, painting-like style of cel-shaded animation that resembled Alan Lee's paintings.

If they include all the songs from the book, there's going to be a lot of "WTF!?" heard in the audience on opening night. :lol:

Sadly, none of that seems likely to pass until all the copyrights have expired. JRR's son Christopher Tolkien owns the film rights to all of JRR Tolkien's work outside of the Hobbit and LOTR, and he doesn't like the idea of film adaptations of his father's work, animated or otherwise.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...lm/1697884.stm

Quite frankly, MGM needs the box office revenue from two hits, rather than just settling for a single film. You know and I know that virtually every single film bearing the MGM logo for at least the last 20 years has been a dud; if it wasn't for the James Bond franchise and the uber-rare inexplicable hit like LEGALLY BLOND (ack!), that studio would have tanked a long time ago. The moment I see a TV spot for ay film that starts off with that roaring lion, I'm like, "Flop!" before I see one more frame of film.

As a SW fan since 1977, and as an admitted fan of The Phantom Menace (it's honestly the most "fun" of the PT), I still agree with this statement.

I wouldn't mind seeing The Hobbit on the bigscreen, and even the two parter thing could work IMHO.

Yeah but you gotta sing it with someone pounding on your back with their fists to give it that Belinda Carlisle-esque modulation.

DO IT!

It would be worth every cent.

2 New LOTR films coming?
 

Here's an interesting article from
ComingSoon.net:

As for The Hobbit, Sloan confirmed that MGM was in advanced talks with Peter Jackson to make two movies based on JRR Tolkien's "prequel" to "The Lord of the Rings."

The first would be a direct adaptation of The Hobbit, and the second would be drawn from "footnotes and source material connecting 'The Hobbit' with 'Lord of the Rings,'" he explained.

An MGM spokesman emphasized that negotiations with Jackson are still in progress, and that production isn't likely until 2008 or even 2009.

It's already been discussed in this thread:
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=412062

Past news has indicated that the two films would be basically The Hobbit split into two. This is the first article to suggest that the 2nd film would be a bridge between The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings instead. Also, it's the first time that it's been acknowledged that Peter Jackson is actually in discussion with the studio.

That's interesting. I'm not sure what kind of material they have to work with from between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings (I've never read all those footnotes). You could do some stuff with Gollum, or show Saurman turning to the dark side, but it seems like it would be hard to make it "epic" enough to fit in with LOTR or even with The Hobbit. But as long as they can get Peter Jackson back and hopefully a few appropriate cast members, I'll watch it.

As much as I liked The Hobbit, I'd much rather see an adaptation of The Silmarillion.

That would be harder than reading the goddamn thing!

It'll never happen. The only reason there's a Hobbit and LOTR is because JRR Tolkien owed some taxes one year so he sold the rights. Silmarillion is under control of the family.

It's pretty unfortunate, as there is so much I would love to see on film from the Silmarillion. There would probably have to be a lot of liberties taken, though.

I'll patiently wait for The Hobbit, enjoying the LOTR discs in the meantime.

:thumbsup: