HOBBIT Budgets Total $560 Million -- So Far

[AndyDursin]

To think of all the things you could do with $600 million...even cinematically... It'll be interesting to see after the very mediocre first HOBBIT how well this next one turns out, especially domestically:

http://variety.com/2013/film/news/hobbi ... 200694351/

Making the movie trilogy “The Hobbit” has cost more than half a billion dollars so far, double the amount spent on the three movies in the “The Lord of the Rings” series.

That figure includes the major 266 days of filming with actors that was completed last year, although it doesn’t include an additional two months or so of “pick-up” shoots done this year. There will likely also be additional post-production costs as the next two movies are completed.

Through March 31, production had cost 676 million New Zealand dollars, or $561 million at current exchange rates, according to financial documents filed Friday in New Zealand, where the movies are being made.

Distributor Warner Bros. and director Peter Jackson may consider it money well spent. To date, only the first movie in the latest trilogy has been released. “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” took in just over $1 billion at the box office.

The documents, filed online by New Zealand’s Companies Office, provide a rare insight into the exact costs of a blockbuster Hollywood production. Often studios release only rough estimates, if anything.

When making the trilogy, Warner Bros. created a wholly-owned New Zealand company it named “3 Foot 7 Ltd,” in reference to the diminutive stature of the movie’s hobbits and dwarves. Company documents show that New Zealand taxpayers have so far contributed NZ$98 million to the trilogy through an incentive scheme designed to attract big budget movies to the country. Such schemes are common among U.S. states and foreign countries that compete for movies.

The trilogy also appears to be one of the most expensive movie productions in which two or more movies are shot at the same time.

Both Box Office Mojo and Guinness World Records estimate the most expensive single movie ever made was “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End” with an estimated $300 million production tag. That movie, in conjunction with “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” — which was shot at the same time — held the previous record for the most expensive total production, costing an estimated $450 million to $525 million.

According to Box Office Mojo, Jackson’s previous trilogy, “The Lord of the Rings,” cost a total $281 million to make. The Star Wars prequel trilogy, meanwhile, cost $343 million, according to Box Office Mojo, which tracks movie costs and box office receipts.

In making “The Hobbit,” New Zealand director Jackson chose to shoot both in 3D and at 48 frames per second, rather than the standard 24, in the hopes of giving audiences greater picture clarity and a more immersive experience. Both techniques added significant expense. The higher frames per second received mixed reviews, as did the movie itself, which starred Martin Freeman as the title character.

The trilogy is based on J.R.R. Tolkien’s novel of the same name and traces the adventures of hobbit Bilbo Baggins as he attempts to help a group of dwarves regain their wealth and stature from the dragon Smaug. “The Hobbit” is the precursor to Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings,” which was made into a movie trilogy that was also directed by Jackson.

The second movie in the latest series, “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug” is due out in December while the final movie, “The Hobbit: There and Back Again,” is due out in December 2014.

Warner Bros. representatives this week replied to emails sent by The Associated Press but did not immediately provide answers to a series of questions about the “The Hobbit” budget.

[Paul MacLean]

For all the money spent on The Hobbit, I thought film was a near-total misfire. Jackson was clearly attempting to make a Middle Earth version of the Star Wars prequels, resulting in an unnecessarily convoluted narrative. Irrelevant plot tangents were cherrypicked from Tolkien's "world building" notes, and awkwardly imposed onto a relatively simple story to make it an "epic" (which is was never meant to be).

Worse, plot considerations were clearly secondary to Jackson desire to create "cool" effects sequences, which, while impressively complex, all lasted three times longer than necessary (and didn't look especially convincing).

[Mike Skerritt]

For all the money spent on The Hobbit, I thought film was a near-total misfire. Jackson was clearly attempting to make a Middle Earth version of the Star Wars prequels, resulting in an unnecessarily convoluted narrative. Irrelevant plot tangents were cherrypicked from the Tolkien's "world building" notes, and awkwardly imposed onto a relatively simple story to make it an "epic" (which is was never meant to be).

Worse, plot considerations were clearly secondary to Jackson desire to create "cool" effects sequences, which, while impressively complex, all lasted three times longer than necessary (and didn't look especially convincing).

Pretty much just this.

I tried but I don't feel like I owe these movies anything anymore. What irks me most is that a brilliant, suitably epic standalone film could've been made from this material.

[AndyDursin]

I tried but I don't feel like I owe these movies anything anymore. What irks me most is that a brilliant, suitably epic standalone film could've been made from this material.

I totally agree -- when he decided to turn it into two movies (before they opted to turn it into 3!) -- I figured the approach he was taking was going to totally obscure the original intent of the story for a simple cash grab. And he's got enough built-in fans to support his "vision", even if it seems pretty clear none of these Hobbit films will make the same amount of money or be as beloved by viewers outside the fan base.

[Mike Skerritt]

I think the success of LOTR was the worst thing that could've happened to Jackson creatively. He has no boundaries, no one to answer to, and the products of the the kind of fiefdom he lords over down in Wellington are the kind of self-indulgent, rudderless movies he's made since then - KING KONG, THE LOVELY BONES, and now THE HOBBIT TIMES THREE. He's nothing if not a shrewd businessman. After the disappointments of the first two he knew the success of the HOBBIT movies would buy him another decade of vanity projects. Until he goes back to turn THE SILMARILLION into a trilogy of three hour movies.

[AndyDursin]

I think the success of LOTR was the worst thing that could've happened to Jackson creatively. He has no boundaries, no one to answer to, and the products of the the kind of fiefdom he lords over down in Wellington are the kind of self-indulgent, rudderless movies he's made since then - KING KONG, THE LOVELY BONES, and now THE HOBBIT TIMES THREE. He's nothing if not a shrewd businessman. After the disappointments of the first two he knew the success of the HOBBIT movies would buy him another decade of vanity projects. Until he goes back to turn THE SILMARILLION into a trilogy of three hour movies.

Yeah, exactly. Making these Hobbit films was basically Jackson going back into a comfort zone -- he had nothing to gain artistically from making these movies (and isn't going to gain anything either). Really it's all about the money, and him retreating back into Middle Earth after his few forays outside his "wheelhouse" (god I hate that cliched term!!! lol) like LOVELY BONES tanked.

[Paul MacLean]

He has no boundaries, no one to answer to, and the products of the the kind of fiefdom he lords over down in Wellington are the kind of self-indulgent, rudderless movies he's made since then...

I would never compare Peter Jackson to Stanley Kubrick, but I see parallels in how Kubrick became something of a hermit who never left Southern England, and I think that affected his work. Jackson's "fiefdom" (as you so well put it), where everything is within arms' reach, seems to have likewise affected his films (particularly in his over-reliance on blue/green screen work). I can't say Dead Alive or Heavenly Creatures are favorite movies of mine, but they at least felt naturalistic, and utilized real locations (and weren't three hours long).