The Official Box Office Thread

[TonyWilson]

The Dino, he donna have a the problem with a the length, eh? I sat through it twice alla ready...

Yeh, but you have a catheter.

[jgraphix]

Just saw this weekend and while not as good as I thought it would be, it is still a Great movie, one that doesn't come around very often and I think that once the kids are out for xmas break, this thing will pick up steam.

I'm going to see it again Friday so that I can pick up things I missed. For any normal person, this might feel a little too long, but for me it felt like 20 minutes, so depending on how much you enjoy your Kong, will depend on how much you enjoy this Kong.

[DinoDeLaurentiis]

The Dino, he donna have a the problem with a the length, eh? I sat through it twice alla ready...

Yeh, but you have a catheter.

BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAH!!!!

Donna make a me laugh a so hard, eh? It's a gonna to slip out a you putz!

[ZombieZoneSolutions]

Look it has to be something other than length, right? Didn't Harry Potter make mad bank and it was super fucking long, no?

Heres how I reckon it / place blame:

1. The crippling length;

2. A tired premise -- A "been there done that" sentiment on the part of the audience; not just because everyone has already seen the same story several times, but also the Jurassic Park movies;

3. A dire need of extensive editing; a process which PJ seems to have skipped over altogether. Far too much of this film is spent on stuff nobody cares about and frankly didn't make much sense. There is at least an hours worth of film here that was just pointless.

Harry Potter does have a larger built in audience than Kong, but it's also about 45 minutes shorter than King Kong. It's also a more tighly constructed and bouncy movie. Pretty much every review i've read, even the glowingly positive ones, have said that Kong is at least an hour too long and suffers from hubris-fueled bloat. I'm actaully surprised that there weren't more negative reviews.

Of course, LOTR was a massive film, it was also a better made film (series) on nearly every level. PJ worked wonders with that story and I'd even argue that he did a better job than Toklein in that he cut out the studly and still was able to bring the world an amazing, immersive, and compelling experience.

With Kong he did the direct opposite; took a slim, trim iconic idea and blew it up to ridiculous proportions which boardered on the ludicrous.

I say this, and I actaully liked it despite it's myriad faults.

[buster00]

Kirks 2Pay, I'm taking your Munich prediction to be an example of dry, sarcastic British wit.

Here in the States, we only have about four, maybe six dozen people left who can point to Munich on a map...much less "debate socially" or "question religion." If Kong's box office drops any more over here this weekend, it'll be because of Santa Claus, not the Mossad.

[DinoDeLaurentiis]

I just don't find it interesting at all. I'll get banned now, so... nice chatting with you folks while it lasted!

You have a said a nothing that would a be considered a the bannable offense, no?

Anna you never get a banned iffa you agree with a the Dino!

[BobGobbler]

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'm actaully surprised that there weren't more negative reviews.

It used to take a long time kissing Mr. Jackson's large behind, and they were just finishing up when writing their Kong reviews. His next film won't get as much of a free pass.

[Chairman Kaga]

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.

Well wouldn't length play into how many showings per day a theater can have? Obviously a film 1/2 or 2/3 the length can fit in more showings thus it can take in more money. It's 187 minutes plus trailers and ads at the beginning and then down time between showings for theater cleanup etc you are nearing 4 hours per one showing...a 90 minute movie could get 2 showings in that same slot.

[burlivesleftnut]

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.

Well wouldn't length play into how many showings per day a theater can have? Obviously a film 1/2 or 2/3 the length can fit in more showings thus it can take in more money. It's 187 minutes plus trailers and ads at the beginning and then down time between showings for theater cleanup etc you are nearing 4 hours per one showing...a 90 minute movie could get 2 showings in that same slot.

Yes, hence my contrasting Kong to Potter's box office take.

[Chairman Kaga]

Potter was the same length as Kong?

[burlivesleftnut]

There is a 30 minute difference. Goblet is shorter.

[havocSchultz]

Potter was the same length as Kong?

i believe the first potter was pusshing 3 hours - right around that mark with trailers and crap - so a little shorter still - i believe the newest one is probably closer to the 2.5 hour mark - still not short - but with trailers and crap and what-not added in - there is still almost an hour difference... like i mentioned above - the numbers are ok - i don't see how a $50 mill opening weekend is considered a flop... it's a tough time to be a filmmaker these days if $66 mill ($146 worldwide) in 5 days is considered a failure... it's not like it's doing Stealth/Island numbers... hell Van Helsing cost at least $140 mill and i think it barely made it to $120 domestic... PJ already made back 3/4 of his budget in the first 5 days... might not be the biggest movie of the year... but definetely is NOT a dissapointment... unless maybe it loses 50% or more next weekend - but we'll see..

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

I bet the length of the pre-show (trailers, commercials, PSAs and such) was shorter for the first Harry Potter. Maybe by about ten minutes but still, that ten minutes could be the deciding factor of whether you're going to see it Wednesday night or Saturday night, or wait till DVD. If PJ could've made his film just under 3:00, the psychological factor of a 2 hour and something movie is more appealing over a 3 hour movie. That's why there are more things for sale for 99 cents than a dollar.

[DinoDeLaurentiis]

I would also argue that a the Potter anna Narnia, they are a considered a the family films, but a the Kong is a not, eh?

Perhaps a the parents are actually a using some of a the common sense anna keeping the bambinos out of a the theater?

[ONeillSG1]

Or maybe the economy of the country isn't what it used to be when hits like Jurassic Park, Titanic and Terminator 2 came out, when people had more money to spend for things like movie tickets, popcorn, drinks and candy.

Why spend upwards to 80 dollars for a family of 4 to go and eat at a theatre when you could spend upwards to 20 dollars when it comes out on DVD?

Why go to a theatre of people who don't shut up or turn off their cellphones when you could enjoy the film in the peace and quiet of your own home?

I think people are starting to realize these things and with the advent of many new pieces of technology, the decision is becoming more and more easier. Ultimately, it is helping them to re-think their movie going experiences and thus sounding the death knell of the theatre business model.

[havocSchultz]

Or maybe the economy of the country isn't what it used to be when hits like Jurassic Park, Titanic and Terminator 2 came out, when people had more money to spend for things like movie tickets, popcorn, drinks and candy.

it's also because all those things are about 3-4 times as much as they used to be... "THEY" bitch about the movies not making enough money - so they jack up admission/concession prices and sell more and more ad space before the movie - then movie-goers bitch that it's too expensive and too many commercials - so they stop going as much - then "THEY" bitch that they're losing more money - so they jack up prices and sell more ad space... and it will keep going forever until the movie theater is just a place to go to buy $68 popcorn, $37.50 for bottled water and pay $94.37 for 2 hours of commercials that you can see on tv...

[ONeillSG1]

Or maybe the economy of the country isn't what it used to be when hits like Jurassic Park, Titanic and Terminator 2 came out, when people had more money to spend for things like movie tickets, popcorn, drinks and candy.

it's also because all those things are about 3-4 times as much as they used to be... "THEY" bitch about the movies not making enough money - so they jack up admission/concession prices and sell more and more ad space before the movie - then movie-goers bitch that it's too expensive and too many commercials - so they stop going as much - then "THEY" bitch that they're losing more money - so they jack up prices and sell more ad space... and it will keep going forever until the movie theater is just a place to go to buy $68 popcorn, $37.50 for bottled water and pay $94.37 for 2 hours of commercials that you can see on tv...

Exactly, it is a vicious cycle that many people don't want to be a part of. That is why many people wait for the dvd and buy it on the release day. So what if they miss it in theatre? They have their own copy of it, without having to pay a price similiar to the GNP of a third world country to see it, and they get to watch it in their PJS!!! Or even naked, as some sick freaks do.

I am not one of those said freaks.

[Chairman Kaga]

It probably a combination of the busy time of year, plus the film's length limits the number of showings per day, plus the increase in home theaters and people waiting for a DVD and people becoming dienchanted with the theater experience because of commercials+the cost of tickets/snacks+idiots who bring screaming kids /talk oncell phones/yell at the screen etc. Maybe it is a microcosm of why the whole indsutry is down.

[havocSchultz]

Or maybe the economy of the country isn't what it used to be when hits like Jurassic Park, Titanic and Terminator 2 came out, when people had more money to spend for things like movie tickets, popcorn, drinks and candy.

it's also because all those things are about 3-4 times as much as they used to be... "THEY" bitch about the movies not making enough money - so they jack up admission/concession prices and sell more and more ad space before the movie - then movie-goers bitch that it's too expensive and too many commercials - so they stop going as much - then "THEY" bitch that they're losing more money - so they jack up prices and sell more ad space... and it will keep going forever until the movie theater is just a place to go to buy $68 popcorn, $37.50 for bottled water and pay $94.37 for 2 hours of commercials that you can see on tv...

Exactly, it is a vicious cycle that many people don't want to be a part of. That is why many people wait for the dvd and buy it on the release day. So what if they miss it in theatre? They have their own copy of it, without having to pay a price similiar to the GNP of a third world country to see it, and they get to watch it in their PJS!!! Or even naked, as some sick freaks do.

I am not one of those said freaks.

i only watch the bugs bunny and tweety show naked... what.. i'm the only one...hmmmm...

but yeah... plus the fact that most movies are around for about a week and a half - then out on dvd about week or two after that... what's the point...

[Chairman Kaga]

i only watch the bugs bunny and tweety show naked... what.. i'm the only one...hmm.

Are they still broadcasting that?

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

That is why many people wait for the dvd and buy it on the release day. So what if they miss it in theatre?

but then how would they participate in these discussions?

I love how exhibitors are crying that the theatrical window is shrinking and don't even acknowledge the correlation with commericials before the movie. Some actually say that moviegoers prefer the commercials. Putzes.

[MasterWhedon]

I love how exhibitors are crying that the theatrical window is shrinking and don't even acknowledge the correlation with commericials before the movie. Some actually say that moviegoers prefer the commercials. Putzes.

Dude, let's be clear. Some of us LIKE paying ten dollars to sit in a dark theater and be force-fed commercials. I mean, like, what's the point of paying to go see a movie if you can't see a bunch of meaningless shit you didn't pay to see before it? Like, duh...

[havocSchultz]

i only watch the bugs bunny and tweety show naked... what.. i'm the only one...hmm.

Are they still broadcasting that?

well - up in canada on TeleToon they are - at different points of the day... nothing beats bugs n' tweety when you've just smoked a fatty...

[Chairman Kaga]

i only watch the bugs bunny and tweety show naked... what.. i'm the only one...hmm.

Are they still broadcasting that?

well - up in canada on TeleToon they are - at different points of the day... nothing beats bugs n' tweety when you've just smoked a fatty...

Damn that is one of the reasons I buy the WB Golden Collections because no place on my cable seems to broadcast old WB stuff anymore.

[BobGobbler]

http://boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/?sortdate=2005-12-19&p=.htm

Kong made just a million more than Narnia yesterday. It will be very interesting to see which film does the best on Christmas Day.

[jgraphix]

There is a clip of "Date Movie" over at JoBlo.com
and they are already making fun of kong in the vid clip.

[Keepcoolbutcare]

http://boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/?sortdate=2005-12-19&p=.htm
Kong made just a million more than Narnia yesterday. It will be very interesting to see which film does the best on Christmas Day.

Somebody bump a that record player, eh? She keeps onna skipping anna playing the same a tune, no?

[BobGobbler]

http://boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/?sortdate=2005-12-19&p=.htm
Kong made just a million more than Narnia yesterday. It will be very interesting to see which film does the best on Christmas Day.

Somebody bump a that record player, eh? She keeps onna skipping anna playing the same a tune, no?

No need to stop a broken record if its playing sweet music.

I just wanted to update you all on Kong's box office success, there's no need for personal attacks.

[Chairman Kaga]

Where is the personal attack?

[Adam Balm]

Thanks for the news, Bob. So a $50 mil three day is the final number. Definitely not a bomb, but low enough to probably give a few suits a scare. I went to see Kong on Monday, and one thing surprised me. It wasn't that the theatre was only one third full (this was a monday after all) but it was when I was walking out afterward and it was while listening to the post-movie jabber that I noticed how much the teenage girls were eating it up. I think this is the 'titanic demographic' that most of the suits were hoping to hook, and while they aren't coming out in droves, they seem to be biting. As Bob said, it'll be interesting to see what happens next weekend.

[Neo Zeed]

We live in different times...

Hollywood entertainment is marketed for children these days. 15 years ago, parents didn't care about the ratings and took their kids to see anything. For example, if Daddy was stoked after watching the Die Hard trailer, yet little missus didn't want Daddy going off having fun without the family. Daddy says fuck! But, then he gets an idea. Fuck "Political Correctness" they were going. They had T2, Robocop, Aliens, and Commando action figures. It was a crazy time, in retrospect.

Nowadays, (post columbine) parents are more cautious. Hollywood has trained the public into believing the movie theater is just a big nursery, to bring your kids. Thus if there's anything even slightly frightening to little Johnny and Suzie's fragile mind, it.... ain't.....getting... watched....period. The studios know this too, so when an action movie queezes past somehow, here comes the censorship. Guns are a no no. Swords are okay..maybe. No foul language. No bullet hits. This movie looks to dark..use the bright lighting..more family friendly!!!

But sir we're making a cop movie.

Studio exec: Then just make more family movies!

Well the problem is that today's Daddy may be more PC, but even he's not gonna take the family (with screaming kids) every weekend to an expensive theater..unless he wants to see the movie too!! Even he gets tired of watching Shrek 2 (no matter how well done) and yearns for entertainment a little more grown-up (and I don't mean porno!). He'll just rent the kids some Pokemon tape or something and wait until the Potter flick comes to town.

But now daddy can watch 24, Lost, The Sheild, Sopranos, and Angel on his own TV. He can rent DVDs and watch them in his and his wife's bedroom. He can play Grand Theft Auto on his memory card when the kids are asleep, and hide the box under the mattress. Junior's watching his Pokemon tape in his own room. TV Ratings go up, Video Game Sales go up, DVD sales go up, Movie Box Office go down.

And the single man? He doesn't want to deal with compromised
entertainment at all. He'll just watch more internet porn or the next cheap horror flick on DVD.

Just a wacky theory I've been kicking around. Let me know what you think.

[Shane]

you may be on to something.

I think some of what you are saying may be so to an extent.


There is alot of kiddie'd down shit now

[Adam Balm]

I find your ideas interesting and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

[freak2thec0re]

I think you're all crazy. Just because King Kong only made fifty million, you're all spelling complete and utter doom for the movie industry? The box office is doing fine, so it's a little down from last year, big deal.

And honestly, do you all really find the commercials that big a deal? . . . At least in the last few theaters I've gone to, they start playing commercials about ten minutes before the scheduled start time, then when your movie time hits, thats when the trailers start (and personally, I love trailers).

As great as dvd's may be, I still think the nicest, biggest flat-screen pales in comparison to the movie-going experience. There are so many films I saw in theatres that I went absolutely crazy for, only to realize a year down the road that the movie really wasn't that good, and I think that says a lot for it. Watching with a crowd is fun as hell . . . unless you're a stuck-up filmfreak who "can't watch" because someone sneezed in the theatre.

I just hate to see all this bashing of theatres. I freakin love going to the movies, and do it as often as I can afford to. I think parts of King Kong even helped to remind me how great it is that a studio will spend hundreds of millions of dollars, build humongous sets, hire thousands of workers, and spend years worth of time to create a piece of magic . . . that you can watch for ten bucks. Best deal in the world, even with five-dollar sodas

[Shane]

I love going to the theatre too but with 3 kids it's hard to get out there.

I'm one that passes on the pop and popcorn. I just go to see a movie, nothing more.

[rufie72]

In the end it will be a relative dissapointment but still pull a profit. What's Peter Jackson doing next?

[freak2thec0re]

"The Lovely Bones"

[Shane]

"The Lovely Bones"

???

waht's that all about?

[Neo Zeed]

I love the theater too. The commercials start up I just talk through those, and I shut up when the trailers begin. I love trailers too. The more the better, I say. Also, I'd say theater conditions are better now than ever before

However, it's what's playing is the problem. With all the kiddie stuff out, studios expect parents to drag these kids out every week. You could save more money going to the park.. and aggravation. It's hard to make some kid sit still and shut up for 2 hours. Even for critically acclaimed cartoons like Shrek. It's a pain in the ass. Maybe back in the day for flicks like ET or Indy Jones. Movies that were engaging and weren't that "safe."

But, no matter how adult "injokey" or well told it is, no parent is gonna break his back for an animated chicken or Will Ferrell getting kicked in the nuts every week. And they're not guaranteed to watch it themselves either. Certainly not for the movie experience.

As for single guy like myself..well maybe I can con myself into thinking The Transporter 2 is as badass as 80s and '90s action flicks. But not when the Die Hard trilogy, and Predator is on cable very night, to snap me back to reality

Torture..er.. Horror movies ain't really my bag. (They're alright, but I'm not really rushing out to see kids get mutilated for the "crime" of being a human being...maybe on DVD..most likely on cable) But if that's what the kids are into these days....

That leaves me with Oscar bait like Syriana, which I'll check out....But, for the general public it ain't no blockbuster....Would they run out for something like Die Hard these days? Hmmm.

[freak2thec0re]

"The Lovely Bones"

???

waht's that all about?

"Based on the best selling book by Alice Sebold, The Lovely Bones is the story of a 14-year-old girl from suburban Pennsylvania who is murdered by her neighbor. She tells the story from Heaven, showing the lives of the people around her and how they have changed all while attempting to get someone to find her lost body."

looks like a much smaller-scale picture than LOTR or Kong, should be interesting to see what comes out . . .


But back on topic, though I'll agree with you to some extent Neo, the unfortunate fact of the matter is that the theatre-business does not, and probably never will, adhere to the kind of people who go to see "oscar bait" like Syriana. Even though we here will bash the hell out of some of the shit Hollywood puts out, that shit sometimes makes amazing amounts of profit, which, as has been said before, gives studios the money to put out said oscar-bait. To repeat my original point, I don't think the theatre business is going away anytime fast.

And I still think a lesser action movie seen in a packed theatre is a better experience than seeing a better one at home by yourself. The experiences I had just recently watching ROS, War of the Worlds, and King Kong contained some completely un-forgettable moments that re-watching the movies on dvd will never be able to top

[EliCash]

the lovely bones is a great book. i found it incredibly moving, and would love to see him tackle it, given his treatment of heavenly creatures, which is of a similar scale.

if that's what he does next, anyway. that announcement was a whole ago, maybe it's changed, but who knows.

[BobGobbler]

Kong made 300,000 dollars more than Narnia yesterday.

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

Kong made 300,000 dollars more than Narnia yesterday.

You think Narnia will catch up? Considering it's a softer rating, geared to kids and half an hour shorter, it better.

[BobGobbler]

Kong made 300,000 dollars more than Narnia yesterday.

You think Narnia will catch up? Considering it's a softer rating, geared to kids and half an hour shorter, it better.

It's hard to say.

Right now, I would say Narnia has about a 70% chance of beating out Kong on Christmas Day, <i>especially</i> with the religious tones attached.

[HeadlessCrane]

All I have to say is that Thank GOD kids don't read movie reviews. I went to see Dick and Jane today and everyone else was seeing King Kong and it was mostly teenagers. They were coming in their packs and everything. King Kong will do fine this week and at Christmas... whether or not the family goes to King Kong or Narnia is going to be based on whether the majority is chicks or guys and then they may just split. I have worked 3 christmas seasons at a theater during college a few years back and that the way it went with James Bond and LOTR and Harry Potter and movies liket The Last Samuri. I think that King Kong will do great and Narnia will be the big suprise winner of the season. Funny... if it wasn't for Narnia and Harry Potter then King Kong would be considered a massive success right now?! They are all three classics and to be honest... I am glad that HP and N are doing so well because those two still have a bunch more of the series to be made and we need them to be massive successes to keep getting more of them. Kong will be the new King Kong for this generation and the next few and it will be a classic.

[BobGobbler]

Yeah, I'd say that without Narnia kong would have pulled about 80 million the first 5 days instead of 66.

My question is who booked which slot first? Was Kong slotted before Narnia? If so, the studio Narnia belongs to showed some huge balls by booking it ahead of Kong. It looks like it paid off.

[Adam Balm]

Yeah, frankly I'm surprised they didn't move Kong. Marvel had the sense to move Fantastic Four so that War of the Worlds wouldn't steal its thunder. A holiday weekend or early January release probably would have worked out far better.

[freak2thec0re]

so, moving on . . . Cheaper By The Dozen 2 opened today. Can it beat Spider-man 2's five-day take? start slow but benefit from amazing word of mouth to eventually overtake Titanic?

[Lord Voldemoo]

so, moving on . . . Cheaper By The Dozen 2 opened today. Can it beat Spider-man 2's five-day take? start slow but benefit from amazing word of mouth to eventually overtake Titanic?

It's got Steve Martin in it, and it's the holiday season, so anything's possible. But if it generates more than 32 dollars this weekend my faith in humanity will be weakened further.

[freak2thec0re]

so I notice there are really no HUGE releases falling on the actual Christmas weekend. I've read a lot of people here saying King Kong would have had a bigger opening weekend if it opened during Christmas, but could it be that they knew King Kong would make a shitload Christmas weekend regardless of whether it was it's opening weekend or not? I think it's smart to open the weekend before Christmas, you practically get 2 opening weekends