CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › 'King Kong' a Gentle Giant on Opening Day
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

'King Kong' a Gentle Giant on Opening Day - Page 4

post #151 of 191
12/20/05 at 3:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2.35:1
I suggest that giving it 200 million dollars, opening it in winter, giving Jackson final edit, having absolutely no bankable stars all combined to make it a questionable business decision.
The thing is, if the film works, I don't care if making it is a good business decision. I didn't finance it.

I prefer a film I loved that will lose money for Universal, over a studio-tampered film that will gross $50 million more at the box office.

I respect your problems with the film. I don't get why you'd view it from a business standpoint.

And some times a film that has everything go for it might not be successful at the box office. Profit can't be a measuring tool for quality. The Shawshank Redemption bombed hard. Shrek 2 earned over $400 million.
Reply
post #152 of 191
12/20/05 at 4:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastronikolas
The thing is, if the film works, I don't care if making it is a good business decision. I didn't finance it.
That's a legitimate way of seeing movies. I'm the same way if the movie works. For me Kong didn't work which makes me immediately wondering why it didn't work both artistically and financially

Quote:
I prefer a film I loved that will lose money for Universal, over a studio-tampered film that will gross $50 million more at the box office.
I'm not arguing that with you, Mastro...who said that...if I said that I was wrong...I'm not arguing that with you...(sorry Joe Versus The Volcano reference)

You're absolutely right, though. In 93 give me Shawshank or Quiz Show over Forrest Gump.

Quote:
I respect your problems with the film. I don't get why you'd view it from a business standpoint.
As I said earlier if a movie fails to work for me I almost immediately wonder why and often times the answer is artistic failure compounded by a bad business decision (in the case of Kong no one telling Jackson that 3 hours is unacceptable not because three hours is too long but because three hours is too long for this particular movie)

Quote:
And some times a film that has everything go for it might not be successful at the box office. Profit can't be a measuring tool for quality. The Shawshank Redemption bombed hard. Shrek 2 earned over $400 million.
I agree. I believe I said that earlier in this thread. However since this thread was talking about the financial disappointment of Kong I thought I would bring up why I thought it failed.
Reply
post #153 of 191
12/20/05 at 5:57pm
One thing that I have not seen mentioned here yet is the fact that New York City is going through a huge transit strike in New York with over 30,000 public transportation employees on strike that is leaving literally millions of people without reliable modes of transportation...that certainly won't help Kong's beginning week(s) grosses in the Big Apple.

Oh and just thought I would also state that I have seen the film twice now and it really is breathtaking entertainment. And no...I would not qualify myself as a Jackson Geek seeing as how other than Kong the only film of his I really dug was The Frighteners.

Those that don't go see it because they are more "into Dinosaurs" or or not interested in Giant Ape movies are missing out. Personally the idea of a Gay Cowboy movie does not interest me in the least but I still plan on checking out Brokeback Mountain in theatres because it is supposed to be a GOOD film. The same rules apply to Kong. Give it a shot. Support quality cinema whether big or small.
Reply
post #154 of 191
12/20/05 at 5:59pm
I honestly don't think I could sit through this a second time around.

Not this quickly.
Reply
post #155 of 191
12/20/05 at 6:02pm
Shouldn't we really wait until we see what kind of legs Kong has before declaring it a failure? I seem to remember the same doom and gloom getting bandied about around the internet when Batman Begins had a similarly soft $46 million opening, before going on to gross over $200 million.

Kong may end up being a disaster at the box office, however, at this point I think a lot of you are being knee-jerk reactionary nincompoops.
Reply
post #156 of 191
12/20/05 at 6:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason P. Thompson
I honestly don't think I could sit through this a second time around.

Not this quickly.
I've seen it three times now, and it actually moves a lot better on repeat viewings.
Reply
post #157 of 191
12/20/05 at 6:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by chappers
One thing that I have not seen mentioned here yet is the fact that New York City is going through a huge transit strike in New York with over 30,000 public transportation employees on strike that is leaving literally millions of people without reliable modes of transportation...that certainly won't help Kong's beginning week(s) grosses in the Big Apple.

Oh and just thought I would also state that I have seen the film twice now and it really is breathtaking entertainment. And no...I would not qualify myself as a Jackson Geek seeing as how other than Kong the only film of his I really dug was The Frighteners.

Those that don't go see it because they are more "into Dinosaurs" or or not interested in Giant Ape movies are missing out. Personally the idea of a Gay Cowboy movie does not interest me in the least but I still plan on checking out Brokeback Mountain in theatres because it is supposed to be a GOOD film. The same rules apply to Kong. Give it a shot. Support quality cinema whether big or small.

The transit strike started today. It had no eefct on this weekends BO.

Not everyone can afford to see every quality ever made. You see the ones that interst you. I've seen The Squid and The Whale, Syriana, Good Luck, And Good Night, and Walk the Line in the past month. Not only are they good movies, but their subject matter interests me. That's what gets me in the theater.
Reply
post #158 of 191
12/20/05 at 7:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by g-dude
Kong may end up being a disaster at the box office, however, at this point I think a lot of you are being knee-jerk reactionary nincompoops.
I think I'm going to use that as my custom user title. I have never been insulted in such a lovely and pleasant manner before!

ETA: Now that I think about it, you're right! I am being a little Scrooge-esque towards Kong and should be applauding the effort of Kong rather than griping about the business aspect of it. I always applauded The Frighteners as a movie that came so close to being brilliant that I weep for the movie Jackson could have made. But this time weep because maybe someone should have stepped in.
Reply
post #159 of 191
12/20/05 at 8:17pm
I have heard a few people now (ones who have not seen it) compare this film to Godzilla, along the lines of "another shitty hollywood remake of an old black and white monster movie."

They are not really seeing it as a "Rings" like affair or anything Must-See and breathtakingly new.
Everyone i know that is keen on Kong are waiting until after Xmas or even New Years to see it as there is just to much wizzing around and busyness to contend with to set aside at least four hours for a movie.
Reply
post #160 of 191
12/20/05 at 8:47pm
Comparing this to the Zilla remake? Cmon!
Reply
post #161 of 191
12/21/05 at 2:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diva
Not everyone can afford to see every quality ever made. You see the ones that interst you. I've seen The Squid and The Whale, Syriana, Good Luck, And Good Night, and Walk the Line in the past month. Not only are they good movies, but their subject matter interests me. That's what gets me in the theater.
So what did Transporter 2 have that Kong lacks to get you interested?
Reply
post #162 of 191
12/21/05 at 2:51am
Jason kicking some serious ass.
Reply
post #163 of 191
12/21/05 at 3:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by g-dude
So what did Transporter 2 have that Kong lacks to get you interested?
Lack of giant apes.
Reply
post #164 of 191
12/21/05 at 4:05am
Diva, do yourself a favor and see the fuckin' film, I'll even send you the ticket from my Frighteners Director's Cut dvd, okay? I mean it.
Reply
post #165 of 191
12/21/05 at 4:09am
Uncle don't try to send her mail. She can't get it at her apartment so she will just try to have it sent to a place she worked at years ago and risk getting her friend fired. Lets not do that so near Christmas! I think she can scrounge up the ten dollars given that she hass ripped off Amazon for at least fifty :-).

Ok sneak attack done! Hah!
Reply
post #166 of 191
12/21/05 at 9:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Domingo
Comparing this to the Zilla remake? Cmon!

Hey i'm not! I wouldn't dream of such a thing
I am just relaying what a few folks i know have mentioned.
They lump Kong in the kind of trash bin as Zilla and Van Helsing.
For the non film aware person, i could see how Kong might not seem so great.
I mean its a big budget "Hollywood" remake of an old Monster Movie.
Its not like that hasnt been tried in the recent past and sucked.

Me-I've told everyone I know to see it.
I even sunk so low as to do an SMS and Email Bomb
I feel dirty even mentioning it.
Reply
post #167 of 191
12/21/05 at 9:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Straxboy - An Anthony Hickox Film
You're deterred by a film having it's score replaced ? Why on earth would that deter you since you have absolutely no idea why that would have happened ? That's asinine. If that was a criteria for you seeing pictures, your list of missed opportunities would include:

Chinatown
Gangs Of New York
The Exorcist
2001
Torn Curtain
Battle Of Britain
The Getaway
Apocalypse Now
Legend
Gladiator
Interview With The Vampire
and
The Big Blue

I know you're talking contributory factors, but come on.

Apathy is a bizarre thing.
Didn't Carpenter scrap all but one track of Morricone's score for The Thing?
Reply
post #168 of 191
12/21/05 at 12:12pm
I don't think so. There's easily a handful of tracks on the DVD...
Reply
post #169 of 191
12/23/05 at 5:49am
Thread Starter 

Narnia goes no.1

I didn't expect this.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/c...5-12-21&p=.htm

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=1966&p=.htm
Reply
post #170 of 191
12/23/05 at 12:05pm
A lot of schools started their winter breaks on Wednesday, and a two hour running time is a lot more appealing to parents than 3:07. Plus Narnia is regarded as more kid-friendly.
Reply
post #171 of 191
12/23/05 at 1:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Cthulhu
Diva, do yourself a favor and see the fuckin' film, I'll even send you the ticket from my Frighteners Director's Cut dvd, okay? I mean it.
I already said I would. It'll probably be my Christmas day movie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kingcujoI
Uncle don't try to send her mail. She can't get it at her apartment so she will just try to have it sent to a place she worked at years ago and risk getting her friend fired. Lets not do that so near Christmas! I think she can scrounge up the ten dollars given that she hass ripped off Amazon for at least fifty :-).

Ok sneak attack done! Hah!
Low blow. However, she was already fired months ago for absenteeism, tardiness, and general ineptitude that went well beyond her leaving packages unattended.
Reply
post #172 of 191
1/9/06 at 5:06am
I`m still baffled by the box office failiure of this flick.

Kong.

Done by the Master of the the LOTR films.

One of the Greatest adventure of your life.

With a super-budget to enhance the experience in term of gazillion top notch special effects.

Why didn`t people go for it? I guess it was a concept that was less in people`s toughts, hearts and souls than Superman and The Sound of Music and all other pop culture films that are part of Americana. I guess it`s true that it may have been just for the geeks(and we can`t see that).

But even with that. Even if you don`t have a particular passion for apes or whatever, it`s still a must see big Hollywood Blockbuster. So that it underperformed is weird. Should it have gotten bigger stars(Clooney and Winslet)?

Heck it didn`t even had the bad negative buzz of Hulk. And it did less than Hulk on opening!

Let`s face it: CGI may have finally hit a wall. And expensive genre movies for more grown-ups too.
Reply
post #173 of 191
1/9/06 at 6:33am
The film's on track to make about $230 million domestically, and end up with around $550-600 million worldwide. Is it as big as Universal hoped? No. Is it a dissapointment? That is entirely based on your own subjective opinion.

Is it a failure? Hardly.
Reply
post #174 of 191
1/9/06 at 10:19am
I'm just surprised Narnia is still riding the wave.

Interesting to know how this film would have done if it was cut down to a reasonable running time.
Reply
post #175 of 191
1/9/06 at 10:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Archer
I`m still baffled by the box office failiure of this flick.

Kong.

Done by the Master of the the LOTR films.

One of the Greatest adventure of your life.

With a super-budget to enhance the experience in term of gazillion top notch special effects.

Why didn`t people go for it? I guess it was a concept that was less in people`s toughts, hearts and souls than Superman and The Sound of Music and all other pop culture films that are part of Americana. I guess it`s true that it may have been just for the geeks(and we can`t see that).

But even with that. Even if you don`t have a particular passion for apes or whatever, it`s still a must see big Hollywood Blockbuster. So that it underperformed is weird. Should it have gotten bigger stars(Clooney and Winslet)?

Heck it didn`t even had the bad negative buzz of Hulk. And it did less than Hulk on opening!

Let`s face it: CGI may have finally hit a wall. And expensive genre movies for more grown-ups too.

From what I've heard from people around me (friends of friends, family, at work, etc) it's all because of a lack of interest. People don't care for King Kong, many haven't even seen the original and told me they'd rather see it than this remake. For most, the trailer did absolutely nothing. To the general public, it looks like a very generic film.
Reply
post #176 of 191
1/9/06 at 11:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Alexor
From what I've heard from people around me (friends of friends, family, at work, etc) it's all because of a lack of interest. People don't care for King Kong, many haven't even seen the original and told me they'd rather see it than this remake. For most, the trailer did absolutely nothing. To the general public, it looks like a very generic film.
It has a giant ape climbing the Empire State Building in it. If there were a phrase that represented the exact opposite of "generic", I would have to nominate "giant ape climbing the Empire State Building". BAD COMPANY was generic. A MAN APART was generic. KING KONG is not generic.
Reply
post #177 of 191
1/9/06 at 11:27am
I just don't get the hubbub one way or the other. It's a big budget spectacle flick from a hot director that had a decent run against another big budget spectacle flick that had wider and greater appeal. Where's the problem?
Reply
post #178 of 191
1/9/06 at 1:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Micah Robinson
I just don't get the hubbub one way or the other. It's a big budget spectacle flick from a hot director that had a decent run against another big budget spectacle flick that had wider and greater appeal. Where's the problem?
I think some people were hoping for Titanic like numbers and are disappointed that it didn't do huge business. I'm not sure why so many people have put that kind expectation on it, though. Nothing suggested that it would be Titanic like in it's numbers.

I think it's a good film with a long running time that had a small appeal. I would say that it's half a billion take worldwide is actually pretty good.
Reply
post #179 of 191
1/9/06 at 1:58pm
I think what's getting lost in all this is the absolutely remarkable and beyond-expectations performance of Narnia. I don't think anybody had this pegged to break $200 million, and it's more because of its own strength than Kong's weakness.
Reply
post #180 of 191
1/9/06 at 9:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuniorMint
It has a giant ape climbing the Empire State Building in it. If there were a phrase that represented the exact opposite of "generic", I would have to nominate "giant ape climbing the Empire State Building". BAD COMPANY was generic. A MAN APART was generic. KING KONG is not generic.
An image that's been recycled over and over in publicity, humour, homages, television, remakes etc. It is generic.
Reply
post #181 of 191
4/4/06 at 6:36pm
Thread Starter 

Not so gentle

Amazing I guess most people didn't want to see it on the big screen after all.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/04/D8GPD9DG6.html
"King Kong' DVD Sets Sales Record

It took heat during the holidays for failing to reach the supremo- blockbuster status that many predicted, but "King Kong" can do some supersized chest-thumping now.

Released as a single DVD and two-disc set on March 28, the Peter Jackson film logged Universal's best first-week sales in studio history, in six days selling 6.5 million copies for a take of more than $100 million.

The previous record-holder was "Meet the Fockers," a studio spokeswoman said.

The film's brisk DVD sales add to its worldwide box-office haul of $550 million. Its ticket sales make "King Kong" the fourth highest- grossing film in Universal's history, following "Jurassic Park," "E.T." and "The Lost World: Jurassic Park."

Universal Pictures is owned by NBC Universal, a joint venture of General Electric Co. and Vivendi Universal.
Reply
post #182 of 191
4/4/06 at 8:27pm
Boxoffice #'s:
Domestic: $218,058,465 39.9%
+ Foreign: $329,036,407 60.1%

= Worldwide: $547,094,872

that means it made nearly half a billion dollars PROFIT (if you include the dvd sales) & people think it was a flop?! i'd love to fail that awesomely on a daily basis...
Reply
post #183 of 191
4/4/06 at 8:51pm
Acutally... theatrically it probably only just broke even. Theaters tend to get around 40% of the gross and Jackson had a 20 mil/20% deal. The film cost somewhere north of 200 (the exact numbers are SKETCHY) and when you throw advertising on top of that (though, you could concievably negate that cost with merchandising rights, etc), it's not looking like a home run in any stretch. The real winner here is Peter Jackson.
Reply
post #184 of 191
4/4/06 at 9:11pm
Let's just say that studios don't make a movie and then cross their fingers, hoping it will do Titanic numbers in order to bring in a profit.

Kong underperformed in theatres (my guess is they expected Lord of the Rings numbers, $300+ million) but still earned over $200 million and will still end up earning a bundle with DVD and ancillary markets. Not bad, if you ask me and definitely not Jackson's fault if expectations were a tad too optimistic.

Anyway, it's nice to see that a lot of people liked Kong enough to buy a copy. Personally, I loved it but it was too emotionally (not to mention physically, with the running time at over 3 hours) exhaustive for a repeat viewing at the theatres.
Reply
post #185 of 191
4/4/06 at 9:19pm
Even though I think the theatrical edit was too long, I'm curious to see an extended version that maybe ties up some loose ends (and frankly, I want to see more Skull Island thrills.) I might be one of the few....
Reply
post #186 of 191
4/4/06 at 9:21pm
I'd definitely like to see all the deleted scenes but I'd be happy to watch them as extras, not edited back into the film.
Reply
post #187 of 191
4/5/06 at 2:51am
Considering the lack of a commentary on the current editions, I'd think/hope that a double dip would be inevitable, especially with those sales figures.
Reply
post #188 of 191
4/5/06 at 9:28am
These are pretty great numbers and I would imagine if it is Universal's biggest selling first week DVD that Extended Edition should be out by year's end with a little luck. I saw the flick three times in the theater and once more on DVD now. I love it and I am not even a Jackson fan per se.

While I know these figures didn't match Potter's Goblet of Fire was bigger and Narnia may well do even better I think it bears noting that King Kong's first week sales are better than War of the Worlds (3-Million Units sold), Batman Begins (4-million units sold) Star Wars: ROTS (5.3 million units sold) and even Jackson's own ROTK (6.3 million units sold). So...that's some Kudos for Kong.
Reply
post #189 of 191
4/5/06 at 9:32am
So when does Son of Kong start shooting?
Reply
post #190 of 191
4/5/06 at 9:53am
As soon as they get him to sign the contract.
Reply
post #191 of 191
4/6/06 at 12:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fafhrd
Considering the lack of a commentary on the current editions, I'd think/hope that a double dip would be inevitable, especially with those sales figures.
I think they could replace that whole Hayes/Jimmy subplot (that went ultimately nowhere and only slowed down the Skull Island buildup) with more Kong and dinosaurs. Put that beach scene back in (that was great!) from the trailer. I realize Jackson was trying to endear us to the supporting characters, but everytime they decided to drift to this father-figure subplot, i was wishing to either get back to the main characters or get to the island faster. there's enough character development where it's needed...

if they release an extended edition with as much features as the LOTR versions, i'll be forking over the cash. the web production diaries are great, but they tried too hard to keep things spoiler-free (duh). so now that the cat's outta the bag, show me everything behind the curtain. especially related to those kickass creature designs, animation/acting, Skull Island goodness etc...
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: CHUD.COM Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › 'King Kong' a Gentle Giant on Opening Day