And for those of us that have read all those works? And even taken a college literature course based on Tolkein's works? (most of which dealt with poetry, the Father Christmas letters, and Tolkein's own literature interpretations)?

Indeed Christopher Tolkein was able to have many posthumous works published. And much credit to him. But the Hobbit and LOTR had already sold hundrends of millions of copies of the works. Just as seeing the Rankin Bass version (strays significantly from the book) of the hobbit when I was a child convinced me to read The Hobbit, I hope that PJ's movies will do the same as a new generation finds these books.

I logged in just to post..

"IN"

If you're really interested in what JRR Tolkien had to say, then this excerpt from the latest film review of The Hobbit is far more relevant to the subject at hand:

If Tolkien received criticism for trying to make Hobbit darker, that doesn't mean that it couldn't be done.

Some people might be satisfied reading Hobbit as a standalone book and evaluating as such. But I (and I doubt I'm alone on this) find that the poor links between Hobbit and LotR are a flaw. It is pretty clear to me that when Tolkien wrote Hobbit, he had only a vague idea where he wanted to take the story next and the two books are not linked solidly enough. There's nothing wrong with trying to make a Hobbit movie more in line with LotR. But Bradley, like his prophet Christopher Tolkien, didn't like LotR, so of course he won't like Hobbit.

I don't know why I'm trying to converse with Bradley, but...

Wasn't it one of Tolkien's friends who convinced him to give up the Hobbit rewrite, not Tolkien himself?

And yet, what PJ has done is bridge the difference. TH:AUJ is not as somber and dark as LOTR. Nor it is entirely all fluff and silly goofiness. It is, on the whole, in the middle, and rather well done for all that. The darkest parts of AUJ didn't feel wholly out of place, and (any length/pacing issues aside) the tone feels more or less very much like the book.

I haven't read it, but I know where the answer lies - - in the book The History of The Hobbit by John Rateliff.

One Amazon reviewer teases:


When I find some time, I'm going to find out the full answer for myself.

Here's the follow-up to my above post...

Through the magic of inter-library loan, I now have obtained a copy of The History of the Hobbit.

It appears to be a fascinating book that I have only just begun to dip into - - it contains the complete unpublished manuscript version of The Hobbit, for instance.

However I will quote the the relevant part as follows from the teaser quote...


Here is the answer (in spoilers for those who want to read the entire book for themselves:

No Magnus, you have reprimanded me in the past that we cant even claim a club is a success even "in spirit" unless it physically makes it

It pains me that sub-275m is even being entertained for this film

I wonder how well this would have done if it were released last year? It seemed like fantasy epics were quite in right after Skyrim came out, but I'm not sure how much that would have played an affect?

Unless it's Harry Fucking Potter

So then, will the Hobbit 3 outgross this Hobbit?

Yes



OUT

As unlikely as it is that anyone here will read it - - here is a short, well-argued discussion on Reddit regarding Christopher Tolkien's opinion of the film adaptations.

His opinion is 100% irrelevant to people that have watched and loved the movies. If there are people that have watched and hated them (or have issues with them), then his opinions are probably of interest.

This club was DOA, never had a chance.

For the few remaining actual J.R.R. Tolkien fans (as opposed to fans of A.D.H.D. Jackson) - - the NYTimes has just published it's review of what may be one of the final works emerging out of Christopher Tolkien's stewardship of his father J.R.R. Tolkien's estate - - The Fall Of Arthur. I haven't read it yet, but that review really whets the appetite!

I really like the music in this club, I think it may still get 275 or so, but I think the third will struggle for 220.

It looks like the second Hobbit misadaptation will succeed in grossing under $250m.

It will top 250 million.

It'll get past $250m, but it'll probably miss $300m. The first film barely got there anyway.

If it's just a bit more frontloaded it can miss 250m.

Why is it going to be more frontloaded? Its midnights-to-opening day ratio was better than the first's and its Saturday drop looks better than the first's.

I think it will have worse WOM than the first movie, therefore worse legs. After having seen it, I'm pretty much sure it will miss $250M. More like $220-230M.