The Official Box Office Thread

All the dirt. All the top secret stuff. Anything that has to do with the process of getting us to sit and watch something projected on the big screen.

Postby havocSchultz on Sat Dec 17, 2005 2:01 pm

Pops Freshenmeyer wrote:Looks like I was off by $3m. Kong made $14.2m yesterday. I have more confidence in making my next prediction.

Bob will think this new figure spells doom for the movie.


ya - here's how it kinda breaks down as is:

In its third day of release, Universal's heavily-hyped monster movie King Kong grossed $14,254,000, according to figures released by the studio on Saturday morning, to boost its cume to $30.3M. The figure was up a healthy 126% from Thursday. The third day increase was substantially higher than those seen by director Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings films which also debuted on Wednesdays in mid-December. Thursday-to-Friday jumps for the Frodo pics were 43% for The Fellowship of the Ring in 2001, 42% for The Two Towers in 2002, and 32% for The Return of the King in 2003. The Friday gross for Kong was almost identical to the $14.2M Friday take for Fellowship during its debut frame which eventually led to a $47.2M three-day gross.
User avatar
havocSchultz
is full of stars...
 
Posts: 15695
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:46 am
Location: living amongst a hazy nothing...

Postby Pops Freshenmeyer on Sat Dec 17, 2005 2:09 pm

looks like what we have here is a running time issue. People just can't find three hours on a Wednesday night or Thursday night to watch Kong. It won't make it's money back opening weekend, but it will over the long run. Anyone care to predict how much NBC will pay for broadcast rights? I know those numbers aren't as heavily reported as box office results are, but if they do get reported all the time over the next few years, predicting them will be the next big parlor game.
Pops Freshenmeyer
REAL DRAGON
 
Posts: 406
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:36 am

Postby havocSchultz on Sat Dec 17, 2005 2:12 pm

Pops Freshenmeyer wrote:looks like what we have here is a running time issue. Kong won't make it's money back opening weekend, but over the long run.


ya - we'll see what happens tonight as well - people have more time on weekends for the movie - and the 126% increase last night shows that alot of people were waiting till the weekend... the friends i've talked to so far say it's anywhere from great to best movie they've seen in a long time - i think word of mouth will work - all the girls i've talked to say they think kong is so cute - and then they've been crying at the end - but in a good enjoyable way... if it does close to the same amount of business 2night - then i don't think we got anything to worry about...
User avatar
havocSchultz
is full of stars...
 
Posts: 15695
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:46 am
Location: living amongst a hazy nothing...

Postby BobGobbler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 3:38 pm

Here's a good chart to look at:

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=bat manbegins.htm

Great word of mouth and favourable reviews on a Wednesday release (that did twice as well as Kong on Wednesday and Thursday) with a nearly identical Friday take.

Kong won't even come close to Titanic, although it does look like it has an outside shot at 200 million domestically.
Peter Jackson is overrated.
BobGobbler
PRIMITIVE SCREWHEAD
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:49 pm

Postby Adam Balm on Sat Dec 17, 2005 3:49 pm

In any event, it's going to make its money back if those numbers hold up.
Image
User avatar
Adam Balm
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 10806
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:59 pm
Location: factored in this happening when it has happened

Postby BobGobbler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 3:59 pm

Adam Balm wrote:In any event, it's going to make its money back if those numbers hold up.


Well, the budget money I suppose. However, that doesn't include advertising, PJ's 30 million dollar salary, distribution costs, etc...

It won't go down in history as one of the worst disappointments ever, but it isn't going to be the cash cow the studio had hoped.
Peter Jackson is overrated.
BobGobbler
PRIMITIVE SCREWHEAD
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:49 pm

Postby Pops Freshenmeyer on Sat Dec 17, 2005 4:19 pm

BobGobbler wrote:
Adam Balm wrote:In any event, it's going to make its money back if those numbers hold up.


Well, the budget money I suppose. However, that doesn't include advertising, PJ's 30 million dollar salary, distribution costs, etc...


The $207m budget includes above the line costs, which include PJ's salary. What isn't in the budget is the P&A cost, prints and advertising. But if you want to play the numbers game, you can also factor in the upcoming sale to a network for broadcasting rights, the ancilliary profits such as the video game and other merch, plus just having the Kong title in your library. Kong will clean up overseas and on home video, and VOD. Plus, you'll see how many times Universal will double dip in that dept. If I was an investor in Kong, I'd be a very happy Freshenmeyer.
Pops Freshenmeyer
REAL DRAGON
 
Posts: 406
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:36 am

Postby Adam Balm on Sat Dec 17, 2005 4:20 pm

No you're right, Bob. And since their marketing costs are unlisted, it's difficult to say. But we can rest assured that
whatever it was, the number was massive. This was probably the most promoted movie of the year...

And let us remember that only 10% of a movie's profits come from the box office. It's mostly a loss leader financial model. The rest of the money comes from what Pops just mentioned.
Image
User avatar
Adam Balm
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 10806
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:59 pm
Location: factored in this happening when it has happened

Postby Chairman Kaga on Sat Dec 17, 2005 5:46 pm

BobGobbler wrote:Kong won't even come close to Titanic.

Who stated it would?
Chairman Kaga
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7660
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:49 am

Postby Cineister Jim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 5:49 pm

I believe PJ reliqueshed his salary, due to a running time penalty in his contract, if I remember correctly.

If Universal really want's to get people off their asses and to the theater, they need to come out publicly that they won't have a DVD for at least a year or more...that friggin' window HAS to widen!
J.W. Grant: You bastard.

Rico: Yes sir. In my case an accident of birth. But you, you're a self-made man.
Cineister Jim
PRIMITIVE SCREWHEAD
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 5:43 pm
Location: East Hell!

Postby burlivesleftnut on Sat Dec 17, 2005 5:50 pm

Boyens told me that I should give up on life after seeing Kong. It's that good. So isn't that kind of the same as saying it would be on par with Titanic?
Image
User avatar
burlivesleftnut
I <3 PACINA
 
Posts: 10626
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 10:28 am
Location: Port Angeles, WA

Postby freak2thec0re on Sat Dec 17, 2005 5:52 pm

Chairman Kaga wrote:
BobGobbler wrote:Kong won't even come close to Titanic.

Who stated it would?



Yea, I keep seeing people critisize king kong for the fact it may not make as much money as Titanic . . . is that not a bit unfair?
"Serves you right, Cartman, you're a sell-out!"
"I'M NOT A SELL-OUT! Wait- What's a sell-out?"
"Anyone in the entertainment business who makes money, is a sell-out"
User avatar
freak2thec0re
MONKEY BUTLER
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:55 am
Location: New York, NY

Postby BobGobbler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 8:46 pm

TheBaxter wrote:Also by comparison, Titanic opened to about $28mil in it's first weekend, and we all know how that turned out. If Kong is any good, people will go see it. Then again, Kong is no Leo DiCaprio.


I didn't start the ridiculous Titanic comparison.
Peter Jackson is overrated.
BobGobbler
PRIMITIVE SCREWHEAD
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:49 pm

Postby burlivesleftnut on Sat Dec 17, 2005 8:48 pm

Are you upset that Jackson lost all that weight? It really bothers me too.
Image
User avatar
burlivesleftnut
I <3 PACINA
 
Posts: 10626
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 10:28 am
Location: Port Angeles, WA

Postby ZombieZoneSolutions on Sat Dec 17, 2005 8:51 pm

I'm upset that he apparently transferred all of that extra bulk into King Kong. The film is really a metaphor for his former physical form -- a keen mind hidden within a bloated beast.
ZombieZoneSolutions
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:28 pm

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Sat Dec 17, 2005 10:21 pm

Chronicles of Narnia made more on Friday. As much as I really like both films, I'm a bit suprised.

Trying to wonder why attendances for Kong are so low. Maybe we should do a poll...

Length?

Seen in twice before?






KONG!?
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16617
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Postby DinoDeLaurentiis on Sat Dec 17, 2005 10:24 pm

Narnia's got a the Religious Right onna it's a side inna the U.S., eh? It's a like a the required viewing inna some a households...
User avatar
DinoDeLaurentiis
SHE'S A THE SARAH SILVERMAN
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 12:15 pm
Location: Private Villa inna Santorini

Postby BobGobbler on Sun Dec 18, 2005 12:15 am

Pops Freshenmeyer wrote:Kong made more on Wednesday then Requiem made globally in it's entire run.


I can't believe I missed this crap the first time.

Requiem for a Dream's widest release was 93 theaters because Aronofsky didn't compromise his vision to get a R rating from the MPAA.

Kong is a mass market digital wankfest that has been released in 3,568 theaters.

I admire your enthusiasm for a movie you like, but don't let your heart get in the way of fact and common sense. It makes you look silly.
Peter Jackson is overrated.
BobGobbler
PRIMITIVE SCREWHEAD
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:49 pm

Postby DinoDeLaurentiis on Sun Dec 18, 2005 12:19 am

[MOD MODE ON]
Okay, now...see? This is a where a the things, they get inna to a the talk-a-back a territory, no?

I think a we alla apreciate a the debate, but a the last a comment, she leans a towards a the insults, anna we here inna the PZ, we try anna do without a that, eh?

This is a the example of a how NOT a to have a the discourse inna the Zone.
[MOD MODE OFF]
User avatar
DinoDeLaurentiis
SHE'S A THE SARAH SILVERMAN
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 12:15 pm
Location: Private Villa inna Santorini

Postby buster00 on Sun Dec 18, 2005 7:40 am

(*sound of beer bottle smashing on edge of bar*)
User avatar
buster00
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 6401
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:12 pm

Postby zombieslayer on Sun Dec 18, 2005 11:05 am

*jumps up from chair, knocking over card table*






oh, and this is cool: http://boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/chart/?id=kongvsgodzilla.htm
zombieslayer
STEAK-A-BABY
 
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:15 pm
Location: Hollywood, CA

Postby BobGobbler on Sun Dec 18, 2005 1:21 pm

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=kingkong05.htm

Difficult to spin that as anything but a failure. 66 million in 5 days where Narnia earned 65 million in 3 last weekend.

50 million this weekend translates to about 30 million next weekend if they are lucky.
Peter Jackson is overrated.
BobGobbler
PRIMITIVE SCREWHEAD
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:49 pm

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Sun Dec 18, 2005 1:24 pm

Scratching head.








Scratching head.

Nah, this just doesn't make sense.
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16617
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Postby ZombieZoneSolutions on Sun Dec 18, 2005 2:54 pm

Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Trying to wonder why attendances for Kong are so low. Maybe we should do a poll...

Length?

Seen in twice before?

KONG!?


1. It's way too long and self-indulgent.

2. The premise is tired -- everyone has seen at least one version of Kong and Jurrassic Park 1-3.

I'm telling you, a leaner cut, a two-hour cut and it'd be rolling in dough. Point blank, PJ went way overboard and Universal weren't tough enough to tell him "enough is enough."

In short: they played themselves. 'Cause theres a really good 2 hour movie hidden within the bulk of PJ's borderline psychotic excess...
ZombieZoneSolutions
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:28 pm

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Sun Dec 18, 2005 2:58 pm

It's what he chose to excess I reckon. The way to make this movie work was to make it a love story, but it failed to do so. There wasn't enough of it.
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16617
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Postby MasterWhedon on Sun Dec 18, 2005 2:58 pm

Bob, I'm going to concede that Kong underperformed this weeked. I'd hardly consider it a flop at this point though. It has made a worldwide total of $146 million, so I think your hopes that it won't make back its production budget are still pretty baseless.

Will this be the next Titanic? No. I never said so. Will it make an assload of money and still push at least $200 mil domestic? My money's on yes.
User avatar
MasterWhedon
KEEPER OF THE PURSE
 
Posts: 9473
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:07 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Postby ZombieZoneSolutions on Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:04 pm

Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:It's what he chose to excess I reckon. The way to make this movie work was to make it a love story, but it failed to do so. There wasn't enough of it.


Good point. I agree. The length of LOTR didn't bother me, and I even have the extended versions! Those were solid films...

With Kong, cut out the ENDLESS boat ride and retardo jurassic bullshit and get to the story I went to the theatre to see... and sadly, didn't see..
ZombieZoneSolutions
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:28 pm

Postby freak2thec0re on Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:08 pm

Personally, I was in movie-Heaven for all 3 hours . . .


but apparantly a lot of people here would rather Jackson cut out an hour solely so it could make more money at the box office, because that's more important to them than enjoying the movie to the fullest extent

I don't think I'll ever understand it . . .
"Serves you right, Cartman, you're a sell-out!"
"I'M NOT A SELL-OUT! Wait- What's a sell-out?"
"Anyone in the entertainment business who makes money, is a sell-out"
User avatar
freak2thec0re
MONKEY BUTLER
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:55 am
Location: New York, NY

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:17 pm

Well, I'm well up for the 3 hour version. I hate short films. As far as Box Office goes, I'm slowly trying to give a less of a shit about that then before. Films are about experiences, not figures, unless you're into Ann's size 4.

This film's about 2 or 3 characters. 3 hours is ample time to tell their story to the fullest. Jackson should have stuck to this, gotten right down deep into it's heart.
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16617
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Postby HeadlessCrane on Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:18 pm

I was also in heaven for 3 hours. This will be a classic. Short attention span movie goers aside... this wasn't just made for them or for money... so, who gives a fuck if most people don't like the 'boring' parts. I loved every single moment on screen.
HeadlessCrane
PRIMITIVE SCREWHEAD
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:33 am

Postby ZombieZoneSolutions on Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:24 pm

freak2thec0re wrote:apparantly a lot of people here would rather Jackson cut out an hour solely so it could make more money at the box office, because that's more important to them than enjoying the movie to the fullest extent


come on, man, that doesn't really even make any sense now, does it? i'm not a film exec, i'm not making any money off of this, so why would its financial success have any bearing on my enjoyment of it? i really wanted to love it. unfortunately, i spent at least an hour being bored out of my mind... and not just by the ENDLESS boatride, but by the ENDLESS 10 or 20 Jurrasic Race / Bug Hunt sequences...

people are upset about Kong because it was a self-indulgent, bloated mess, not because it isn't making the numbers. personally, i couldn't care less about how much it makes; i do care, however, that the man had a classic in his clutches and he blew it with ego and excess.

as Kirk said, what this film needed was FOCUS. i agree 100%. i hope PJ has learned his lesson and will make a better film next time...

btw, it has nothing to do with a short attention span. i loved the LOTR movies (i even own all the extended dvds! like every good geek should!) and they were rather long. BUT their length was justified by the epic scope of the story. this same thing applies to films like Gone With the Wind or Doctor Zhivago.

you're reaching...
Last edited by ZombieZoneSolutions on Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ZombieZoneSolutions
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:28 pm

Postby havocSchultz on Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:45 pm

yes - kong made in 5 days pretty much exactely what narnia made in 3 - but don't you think that if kong only had 3 days - it probably still would've made the 66 million - either way - like some have said - a 50 mill weekend (66 mill 5 day) gross i don't think has ever been considered a failure - ya - they were hoping for more - but likes been mentioned - the true test will be next weekend - if it drops 45+ % - then it's gonna have a tough time making quite a bit more - if it does something more along the lines of Batman Begins - which i believe in it's first few weeks dropped less than 40 % - it will do quite well - and this doesn't have much competition for the next week or 2 - school's out as well etc etc like everyone has stated already - so - to re-iterate - no - it didn't break any records - but i'm sure PJ and Universal aren't crying themselves to sleep... yet... you never know - well - at least not till the 2nd weekend that is...
User avatar
havocSchultz
is full of stars...
 
Posts: 15695
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:46 am
Location: living amongst a hazy nothing...

Postby Cineister Jim on Sun Dec 18, 2005 4:06 pm

Saying Kong was too long is like complaining the sex took too long!

Narnia didn't have any big competition when it opened, Kong has to face down Narnia's second weekend.
J.W. Grant: You bastard.

Rico: Yes sir. In my case an accident of birth. But you, you're a self-made man.
Cineister Jim
PRIMITIVE SCREWHEAD
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 5:43 pm
Location: East Hell!

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Sun Dec 18, 2005 4:54 pm

Long sex is great! As long as me and my partner are too. Sometimes sex can be long for the wrong reasons, like taking ages for one of the partners to reach orgasm.

Maybe if you try gripping it real hard sweetheart, something might happen.
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16617
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Postby Rindain on Sun Dec 18, 2005 4:56 pm

Great news for Kong. A weekend increase like this after such a low Wednesday/Thursday is almost unheard of (the only other example I can think of is Shrek 2).

The questions now are:

--Can Kong maintain that $50 million 3-day estimate when the actual numbers are released tomorrow?

--How much will it drop next weekend? (or will it drop at all--Christmas day could be absolutely huge)
Rindain
TOMBOY BEANPOLE
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 3:35 am
Location: Beverly Hills, CA

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Sun Dec 18, 2005 5:08 pm

Munich will steal all the politically minded, socially debating, religiously questioning toddlers who were around at the time of the 1972 Olympics, away from Kong. Mark my words.

For this reason alone, Kong will have the biggest 200% drop off for a 2nd weekend movie (takes a big breath in) - EVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16617
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Postby ZombieZoneSolutions on Sun Dec 18, 2005 5:34 pm

Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Munich will steal all the politically minded, socially debating, religiously questioning toddlers who were around at the time of the 1972 Olympics, away from Kong. Mark my words.

For this reason alone, Kong will have the biggest 200% drop off for a 2nd weekend movie (takes a big breath in) - EVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!


hey, don't forget about Xmas though! all those kidlins with their PSP and their such wandering around the mall in a sugarzombie daze lookin' for a pitcher to see? that's a potential Kong saver. then again, most of them will probably be going to see Narnia. (ouch). which pisses me off. i would much rather PJ would "win". maybe next time he'll hire an editor.

(sort of off topicish, but i'm psyched about the Syriana too. i'm trying to reckon if these two films -- Syriana and Munich -- are "wait for DVD" or "run out and see!")

even though i found alot of Kong exasperating, thats a movie that needs to be seen on the Big Screen. and while i've criticized it, the whole thing was really pretty to look at; especially Ms. Watts big beautiful blue eyes... sigh...
ZombieZoneSolutions
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:28 pm

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Sun Dec 18, 2005 5:49 pm

The kids will see both. I don't think there'll be any film stealing away from the other at the end of the Holiday. If they're gonna see Kong then they're gonna see Kong, generally speaking.

Anyway, I really liked Narnia. I loved all that childlike magic and fantasy that it contained. It deserves the audience it's getting, Kong deserved more than it's getting.

Lassie will still own everyone's asses.
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16617
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Postby Pacino86845 on Sun Dec 18, 2005 5:54 pm

Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:If they're gonna see Kong then they're gonna see Kong, generally speaking.

I know, I hate it when a different movie starts playing in my head than the one I paid to see.
User avatar
Pacino86845
EGYPTIAN LOVER
 
Posts: 14064
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:20 am

Postby Pops Freshenmeyer on Sun Dec 18, 2005 6:38 pm

$20m on Saturday. $15m on Sunday (don't know how this figure it out when the day isn't even over.) For a 3 hour movie, I don't think these are bad numbers.
Pops Freshenmeyer
REAL DRAGON
 
Posts: 406
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:36 am

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Sun Dec 18, 2005 6:44 pm

Ooooh, the numbers game. I bet we all can't wait 'till next week's weekend can we? I still don't know if the % drop for Kong will be that encouraging. I dunno if people like it THAT much, but let's hope so.

Now, I would love to talk more, but Carla Gugino in Snake Eyes is about to exit the stadium out into the rain, in just a loose shirt.

Yoo gart Shnake Eyesh!!!
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16617
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:06 pm

This is waht Box Office Mojo said...

'Transforming the 1933 version's lecherous beast into a sensitive, realistic-looking gorilla did not help matters. Despite the digital bombast, Kong appears smaller than the stop-motion classic. He looks like a gorilla simply shown at giant scale, not the monster people know and love. What's more, while the original Kong is one of the most famous movies in history, it's a picture that resonates mostly for its innovation and influence—at its root, it was a well made B picture—and it's not a premise that screams "three-hour running time."'

I dunno about you guys, but I completely disagree with most of this.

The fact that Kong is no longer a monster and is an actual real giant ape is exactly the point for seeing it.
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16617
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Postby Pops Freshenmeyer on Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:25 pm

it made a quarter of it's budget back opening weekend. Not a record breaker but not bad either.
Pops Freshenmeyer
REAL DRAGON
 
Posts: 406
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:36 am

Postby TheButcher on Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:01 am

Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Chronicles of Narnia made more on Friday. As much as I really like both films, I'm a bit suprised.

Trying to wonder why attendances for Kong are so low. Maybe we should do a poll...

Length?

Seen in twice before?






KONG!?


It has to be the length.
My theater had four screens showing KONG. But they only have three showings a day on each screen.
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Postby havocSchultz on Mon Dec 19, 2005 10:10 am

it also made about $80 mill internationally this weekend - so it has already about $146 mill in 5 days - worldwide - also - apparentely exit polls are sitting at around 92% - all of them stating the movie is very good to excellent - and the audience was about 53% male - and 55% over 25... so - do with those numbers what you may - it shows that people are/going to rcommend it - more younger folk will be coming in - and women are making up almost entirely half the audience... women and teenagers is what the film needs if it wants to keep making money - everybody knew the fanboys and the action fans would be going out in the first weekend or two...
User avatar
havocSchultz
is full of stars...
 
Posts: 15695
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:46 am
Location: living amongst a hazy nothing...

Postby DinoDeLaurentiis on Mon Dec 19, 2005 10:34 am

The Dino, he donna have a the problem with a the length, eh? I sat through it twice alla ready...
User avatar
DinoDeLaurentiis
SHE'S A THE SARAH SILVERMAN
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 12:15 pm
Location: Private Villa inna Santorini

Postby burlivesleftnut on Mon Dec 19, 2005 10:37 am

Look it has to be something other than length, right? Didn't Harry Potter make mad bank and it was super fucking long, no? I am sure Potter has a larger builtin audience, so maybe the argument is pointless, but I don't believe the movie underperformed because of LENGTH. And honestly, I don't think the movie underperformed. I think it might have been OVER FINANCED, but that's another can of worms.
Image
User avatar
burlivesleftnut
I <3 PACINA
 
Posts: 10626
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 10:28 am
Location: Port Angeles, WA

Postby BobGobbler on Mon Dec 19, 2005 10:47 am

burlivesleftnut wrote:Look it has to be something other than length, right? Didn't Harry Potter make mad bank and it was super fucking long, no? I am sure Potter has a larger builtin audience, so maybe the argument is pointless, but I don't believe the movie underperformed because of LENGTH. And honestly, I don't think the movie underperformed. I think it might have been OVER FINANCED, but that's another can of worms.


I think they are tied pretty closely to eachother. How could the movie have cost less? Cutting out 40 minutes of pointlessness that cost a lot of money to produce.
Peter Jackson is overrated.
BobGobbler
PRIMITIVE SCREWHEAD
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:49 pm

Postby DinoDeLaurentiis on Mon Dec 19, 2005 10:49 am

Two things, eh? One, I think it's a matter of a the audience expectations, eh? Not alla the peoples are as a the Kong-crazy as a the Dino...

Anna Two, casting. Kong is a movie that's a gonna to appeal to a the men before it appeals a to a the women, eh? Anna let's a be honest... Adrien Brody, he's a no Brad Pitt inna the looks a department, eh? Iffa you had a the "stronger" leading man, you'd have a the better chance of a the date crowd, no?
User avatar
DinoDeLaurentiis
SHE'S A THE SARAH SILVERMAN
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 12:15 pm
Location: Private Villa inna Santorini

Postby Gentleman on Mon Dec 19, 2005 11:02 am

I agree with Dino.

Is Kong really that interesting? Apart from the fact that we all know the story or the fact that we've already seen him on the big screen before, something else may be the reason people aren't responding as much as it was expected. I'll just ask: Does Kong really "command" you to see it? I don't know why, but I've had zero interest in Kong since I heard about Jackson doing it and the trailers didn't do much for me either. NOW, this doesn't mean it is a bad film, not at all! I'm just wondering... could it be that many just aren't too interested in this? Of course, the box office numbers show that many ARE indeed interested... but you know what I mean.

I just don't find it interesting at all. I'll get banned now, so... nice chatting with you folks while it lasted! :D
Image
Gentleman
TOMBOY BEANPOLE
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 8:14 am

PreviousNext

Return to Movie News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests