Lord of the Rings: RotK to debut this November?

[Chun-tzu]

Found an interesting article that was originally published a few days ago in the LA Times. The link to the article is here:

http://www.sunspot.net/bal-artslife-news-oscars2004.story

The article talks about the Academy's decision to move the Oscars up a month, because of declining ratings. This could have drastic effects, however. Now all the big movie studios are pushing to get their films done earlier, to make sure Oscars voters have a chance to see their film. This includes Lord of the Rings, which was planned for a Dec. 17 debut, but they're now pushing for release in the third week of November.

Who knows what this will mean? The race is on. Hopefully, Jackson won't have to compromise much, in the effort to get it done a month early. Then again, this may prove to be good for LOTR, if it does get done early, but other competitors aren't so quick.

 

[John Crichton]

Interesting...

I hope he waits as long as he has to. I'm of the mindset that more time gives a better film. The first 2 are timeless and I believe will prove so over the coming years. There is no need to rush it. The studio will be making millions off it whether it takes home a best picture Oscar or not. One month is not that long...

 

[Negative Zero]

interesting. i was remarking to a friend just today, that the Oscars came and went and i didn't even notice. normally, there is so much hype on the radio and tv leading up to it. this year there just didn't seem to be that much of it. i didn't even know when they were. i just kinda figured they'd passed when i saw the "Two Towers Oscars" thread.

personally, i was really disappointed with tTT. it could have been that i set my expectations too high after seeing FotR, but i just don't think that it was nearly as good a film as the first one. by comparison, there were so many things that i didn't like about the second one, and not nearly as many as the first. also, by this time, i'd seen FotR about 6 times compared to the twice i've seen tTT.

should the franchise push up the date to get in the running for a statue? sure. they've plenty of notice and can add a few hours each week to the work load so that they make up the time way ahead of schedule. on the other hand, if the rush will affect the quality of the film, then the answer is a resounding no.

i don't think that PJ and crew will shortchange themselves (and us) at the end, after all this hard work tho.

~NegZ

 

[Ranger REG]

Screw the Oscar. Let Peter Jackson do what he needs to make a great third and final film of the LOTR Trilogy.

 

[Corinth]

Not gonna happen. New Line will not let Jackson miss the Oscar window.

 

[KenM]

I would rather have PJ take the time to make sure RoTK is right. Fellowship took in almost 900 million, thats just box office, not DVD/ video sales. It cost 325 million to make all 3 movies, so everything brought in by Two Towers and Return of King is profit. Hopefully New Line will cut PJ some slack becuse of the money it will bring in. I hope New line will let the 3.5 hour version of RoTK to be the one that is in theaters.

 

[Wormwood]

Not gonna happen. New Line will not let Jackson miss the Oscar window.

Which is strange, since fewer and fewer people actually pay attention to the Oscars every year.

Didn't Two Towers outgross FotR, even though it picked up less statues?

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

I would rather have PJ take the time to make sure RoTK is right. Fellowship took in almost 900 million, thats just box office, not DVD/ video sales. It cost 325 million to make all 3 movies, so everything brought in by Two Towers and Return of King is profit. Hopefully New Line will cut PJ some slack becuse of the money it will bring in. I hope New line will let the 3.5 hour version of RoTK to be the one that is in theaters.

Not New Line's decision. The three hour limit is to do with cinemas. In a working day, cinemas can fit in 4 showings of a 3 hour film (say at 1100, 1415, 1730 and 2045). With a 3.5 hour long film, it's only 3 films per day. Which loses them a lot of money. So the films are 3 hours long in the cinema edit.

 

[Barendd Nobeard]

Not New Line's decision. The three hour limit is to do with cinemas. In a working day, cinemas can fit in 4 showings of a 3 hour film (say at 1100, 1415, 1730 and 2045). With a 3.5 hour long film, it's only 3 films per day. Which loses them a lot of money. So the films are 3 hours long in the cinema edit.

Well, it is New Line's decision, but the dictates of the business pretty much require a 3 hour max limit.

Just be glad they're three hours long. PJ's contract allowed him only a 2 hour 20 minute running time. The extra 40 minutes is solely thanks to New Line who (as a company) had enough vision to realize three hours was the minimum required for both movies released so far.

With RotK being the final chapter in the trilogy, New Line could probably release any length they want, and they know people will go see it. However, to keep on good relations with the theater owners (most of whom are large companies, whom New Line will want to book New Line's other films), they will most likely stick to 3 hours.

 

[KenM]

Someone else posted on the fourms that PJ has 3 versions of Return of the King. A 3 hour, 3.5 hour and 4.5 hour. PJ said he will need a minimum of 3.5 to tell it right, and he hopes to get the 3.5 hour in the theaters, and the extended DVD will be the 4.5 hour version.