A King Kong bomb, or just a very sluggish movie market?

Well as anaecdotal evidence my wife won't go with me to see it (which means I probably won't bother going either) simply because the movie is 3 hours long. Most of the women I know simply don't want to sit through a non-drama/chick flick of that length.

simply because the movie is 3 hours long. Most of the women I know simply don't want to sit through a non-drama/chick flick of that length.

I had forgotten to comment about that issue Greywar, thanks for the note on that part. And you are right, (not to generalize here, but I will anyway) I don't think that many females would have the desire to sit through 3 hours worth of Kong, while I know they will sit for that long for something like Titanic. Just a fact of the way Men view movies versus Women doing the same.

kong was king back in the 1930's now it's just king bomb.

Hollywood's latest "guaranteed" block buster

Hearing that so much lately has been making really uncomfortable, because there's no such thing as a sure thing.

mid-1980's failure).

1976, actually.

Unless you mean the 1986 sequel King Kong Lives, in which we find out Kong didn't really die, but has been kept on life support. No, I'm not kidding.

continued slump in the movie market,

That's greatly exaggerated.

because the Hollywood and media elite are wanting to give that honor to Brokeback Mountain or just about any other non-Peter "Mr. Lord of the Rings" Jackson movie)

Actually, I think they're waiting to see Spielberg's Munich before they make any decisions. Kong would be a hard Oscar sell anyway, but even more so with LORT's recent wins. I wouldn't be surprised to see a Best Picture nomination, but a win is almost certainly out of the question.

A King Kong bomb, or just a very sluggish movie market?

It's way too early to know.

If by the end of the weekend it's taken in over $100 mil. (which it probably will), then I'd expect it to make $250+ mil. easy. If it doesn't make $100 mil. by the end of the weekend, I'd consider it a major disappointment. Then they'd have to hope people are waiting for a couple of weeks before seeing it and that the movie'll get a Titanic like growth spurt. We'll know by weekend 2 whether or not that would be the case.

(I'll place my bet on the $250+ mil. )


Let me slip into ill-informed pundit mode. Some thoughts on Kong...

Personally, I haven't cared. I never particularly liked Kong. When he took on Godzilla, I cheered for the big lizard.

When I was a kid, I much preferred Mighty Joe Young, or even the sequel to the original Kong, Son of Kong.

I keep hearing everyone say the film looks so great, and maybe it does on the big screen, but on TV I keep thinking it looks crappy. I hate CGI and this looks like I'm watching some live action poorly slapped into a video game. Have you seen that shot in the jungle where Kong has the girl and he's fighting and his fist comes toward the camera, lunging Naomi Watts toward the screen? That looks soooooo amateurish to me.

Oh, well.

Another turn off, watching the commercials and clips, as you mentioned, I don't see much there I haven't already seen -- several times. It's like *YAWN* why bother? That alone makes it a "wait till the library gets it" for me. But a lot of today's movie goers weren't even alive for the last iteration, so who knows? (Because of my own dislike, I'm also grossly underestimating Kong's inexplicable -- to me -- popularity.)

And 3 hours? Wasn't the original like an hour and forty minutes or something? That would make this one nearly twice as long to tell the same story. Good Lord, can't his man make a short film? News conference I'd like to see:

REPORTER: Mr. Jackson, what will your next project be?
JACKSON: I'll be adapting the classic, War and Peace. It'll be about 80 minutes long.

Another couple of Kong remakes and the bloody thing will be 6 hours.

Anyway, for me there are just too many turn offs.


That said, I'll probably see it and love it.

The time is kind of a draw down, but I guess I have been so disappointed with remakes, that I really dont care to go see it.  And Neither does my son, so we will probably wait for the DVD.

I really don't care if I see it either. I am more interested in Memoirs of a Geisha since I loved the book. I may take my boys to see King Kong it if they really, really want to see it. Munich may be a really good movie but it just looks too depressing to me.

I like to go to the movies but it seems like they are just there and gone so fast. If you can't get out within the first week or two they might be gone. I wanted to see Corpse Bride and Pride and Prejudice but by the time I could get to the theater, they were already gone in a matter of a couple of weeks.

We did see Just Friends because I was having a crappy day and just needed a funny movie pick me up. We took the boys to see Harry Potter opening weekend.

There is also the fact that they are now making it to DVD in record time. Serenity is already coming out. How long ago was it at the theaters? The summer maybe?

I heard yet another complaint about this movie this morning, from one of the reviewers who appears on Tony Kornheiser's radio show, Joe Barber. He actually liked the first 30% (give or take) of the movie when Peter Jackson was more concentrating on the people and their stories, but he complained that the last 70% (give or take) of the movie was just jammed with CGI special effects all over the place. Once the participants get to the Island, he said things pretty much fall apart, as the movie becomes one of a big computer generated monkey taking up the entire screen with a few shots of actors/actresses standing with looks on their looks on their faces that are supposed to have been inspired by the non-existent computer images that are filled in around and behind them.

His other complaint was the same one Greywar mentioned before -- time. As mentioned previously, the original King Kong was approximately 1 hour 40 minutes, this one comes in at over 3 hours. That's a long time to sit in a seat and basically be watching special effects. He was left questioning whether Peter Jackson has Kevin Costner disease, since he too is infamous for making movies much longer than they really need to be to convey the main story.

I don't know how much I trust this article, given its numerous grammar and spelling errors, including "Comparitively", "it's opening weekend," and others...use spellcheck, man. The name explains it - you're supporting the wrong team!

I don't know how much I trust this article, given its numerous grammar and spelling errors, including "Comparitively", "it's opening weekend," and others...use spellcheck, man. The name explains it - you're supporting the wrong team!

Thanks for stopping in to be troll for a day. Please be sure to pay your respects on the way out.

I loved the original King Kong film, the 1976 Jeff Bridges, Jessica Lange remake had it's moments, but I have no plans to see this one (in theater or on DVD). Peter Jackson did a great job with LOTR, and (inho) he should have chosen a better follow up project. If all he has to add in his interpretion of the storyline and plot is CGI, then it isn't worth the time or money.

As someone at the office said when we came back "If it was on cable, I wouldn't watch it again."

I'm on board with the first 25% or so of the movie being the best part. Why? Because we met the characters, learned a bit about what made them tick to get them to this point, and started building some tension for what we all knew was coming (generically, Skull Island and KING KONG).

Were there humorous moments? Yes. Were there ironic moments? Cool throwbacks to the original film? Some attempts at emotion? Yes, by all means. And I thought Jack Black did really well.

Were there also long CGI sequences where I thought of SNL characters running in front of a green screen and looking over their shoulders and scream "OH NOES!!!"? Yes. Were characters introduced and then ignored for 20 minutes or brought onscreen only to die? Yes. Were there tedious moments of interplay between characters who weren't strictly necessary and who vanished at a certain point from the remainder of the film? Yes. Were there sequences where literally nothing was said for 5+ minutes? Yes. Were there some totally gratuitous CGI scenes (nevermind the OH NOES ones)? Yes. Was it very long? Yes. With an extra helping of camp.

No offense, but I want to know who blew who to get some of the reviews I've read.

Can't wait to read the "abridged script" for this on the Internet.

Can't wait to read the "abridged script" for this on the Internet.

Heh. The really scary part will be when this thing hits DVD and gets an extra special "extended Director's cut" that adds some amount of footage that was "on the cutting room floor." When that happens, the run time for the movie will probably near 3 hours 30 minutes, if not more, and we'll all be wondering how anyone could ever have made it that long.

Ouch, the numbers from the second day of this supposed blockbuster are even worse than the first day. Numbers found here, showing a take of $6,295,755 for the second day (Thursday), which is down 35.5% from the first day, bringing in an average of $1,765 per screen, and a total of $16,051,500 for the two days the film has been out in the theatres.

While $16 million is nothing to sneeze at, for a movie that was supposed to be the next major hit to come out of Hollywood, these numbers can be nothing but disappointing. Again, I know these aren't weekend numbers (yet), these are just the lead-in to the weekend, but these are still very disappointing. If Kong was going to be popular, those numbers should have been closer to $20 or even $30 million over just the first few days.

Hollywood is definitely experiencing a slump. Perhaps from a lack of creativity, or more because there's a lack of disposable income that people wish to waste on filmgoing, or maybe a combination of the two. I'm just glad I don't have a lot of money (that I know of) tied up in stocks in any of the movie studios or their parent corporations. My 401-K, nor my wife's IRA, don't need that sort of bad news.

I dunno...Narnia doesn't seem to be feeling the effects of the slump.

I think the situation is more like..."do we see the third remake of a movie whose original was a true classic, or do we see the first installment of the first fully realized (yes, I realize there was a BBC version, but anyone with a brain knows it didn't live up to its potential) version of what may be one of the true classics of this era?"

Much like LOTR, generations of fans have been anxiously awaiting the arrival of the Chronicles of Narnia on the big screen, and, in this case, it may just be a case of the lion trumping the ape.

I dunno...Narnia doesn't seem to be feeling the effects of the slump.

Certainly some movies aren't getting hit as hard by the supposed slump, but others have certainly not done as well as expected, and Hollywood seems to have definitely lost the magic touch (if they ever had one) of being able to release just about anything and having it rake in $50, $60, $70 or more million just because it showed on big screens.

Take my earlier example, Serenity. It had a loyal following, it received fairly generous promotion by the studio, and yet it was basically in and out of the theatres in no time flat.

Fantastic 4, gone before you could say Flame On.

The Island was left out on it's own Island.

Stealth (double entendre) gone before anyone could see it.

Walk the Line had no one in it's lines after the first day or two.

Aeon Flux never clicked with an audience.

You could go on and on.

Certainly Narnia, the latest Harry Potter and a few other family friendly films have done better, but even family friendly stuff like Disney's Valiant (from the producers of Shrek, etc.) failed to deliver crowds.

I've commented before that perhaps a lot of this is because of DVDs, home theatres, shrinking entertainment (at least for going out) budgets, and such. Little Whip has also hit upon some of my pet peeves above -- noisy children (other people's kids), cell phones, rude theatre goers, etc. -- that also make going out to a film a bad deal.

Either way though, I remain concerned that the quality of what we get in the future may continue to decline as Hollywood continues to miss the real reasons for their declining returns.

Aeon Flux killed itself...they didn't allow critics to prescreen the movie...certain death in that industry. As for Walk the Line, my guess is it'll be a DVD blockbuster...a lot of folks hold back on movies like that because the draw of the big screen these days is special effects.

As for FF...well, while it was a favorite of mine as a kid, that was as a kid. I've turned in my "geek squad" card and put more priority on raising a family. FF doesn't have the sentimentality that something like Narnia does. It doesn't hold up to the test of time because the characters are themselves one dimensional, as are many comic book heroes.

Hollywood's definitely in a slump, there's no doubt about that. But, while I am a HUGE Johnny Cash fan, "Walk the Line" would probably have worked better as a small screen movie channel release, and the others you cite were poor choices at best. The problem with Hollywood is that it's losing touch with the people. It's either painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa by remaking old films ("King Kong"), resurrecting small screen schmaltz in the hopes to lure Gen X viewers by insulting our intelligence ("Bewitched"), or releasing movies with agendas that are disconnected with many potential viewers ("Brokeback Mountain, Syriana"). The few standout movies they're making are most definitely NOT suffering at the box office.

And a footnote: Walk the Line's current take is just over $75 million. While it might not be the blockbuster many had hoped for, it's hardly a flop. My prediction is that it will be a DVD blockbuster.

The slump isn't in the viewers (since we will go see movies that we are excited about)... The slump isn't in the disposable income of the viewers (again, we will go see movies we're excited about)... The slump isn't even the inconveniences and expense of theaters (again, we will go see movies we'r excited about)...

The slump seems clear to me (although it seems to completely escape Hollywood)... They are just not making as many movies that are worth getting excited about!!!

They are just not making as many movies that are worth getting excited about

I agree somewhat, as you and Gideon have made the same points.

The crap that Hollywood has produced lately has been mostly that.

I enjoyed Serenity a lot (I'll be getting the DVD next week when it's released, and will rent it via Blockbuster by mail as well, since I want to help spike it's popularity and perhaps encourage a few others to get the movie too). My family enjoyed it too, though they felt they were "dragged" to the movies to see it.

We also saw Fantastic 4 as a family trip to one of the few remaining drive-in theatres in the country. That film was ok, not great, but not bad. The drive-in that we went to is one that bundles multiple movies together, so we saw the Martin Lawrence film "Rebound" at the same time. It was meant to be a family film, and was tolerable, but nothing that I would ever have paid money to go see on it's own. If we had stayed for the movie, the late movie of the nite the weekend we went was Batman Begins. That was a decent film, but I saw it separately, and it's not something my family was interested in (especially given that it didn't start until midnight at the drive-in and the drive-in was a considerable ride away from home).

We saw few other movies this year. The wife and I saw "Must Love Dogs" which was ok, but seemed like a lot of other similar films.

I guess the other big movie we saw was the new Harry Potter film, which was good, but realistically we are about 2/3rd's of the way through the collection of stories, and eventually that cash cow will be gone for Hollywood.

Other films I remember from throughout the year: Robots (took my daughter to that one to share some daddy/daughter time). Ok movie, but again, nothing to write home about. Herbie: Fully Loaded. Predictable, and dredging up a 40 year old Disney franchise. Chicken Little, which my wife wanted to see in 3d. Ok movie at best, pretty much snoozed through it. And finally, Wedding Crashers, which was good, but drug on too long.

The rest of the stuff that came and went, I could barely tell you what it was. Most was not memorable at all. I might have rented some of it via Blockbuster (or previously via Netflix), but even then I don't much remember what it was. Just a bunch of same old, same old. Forgettable movies, with mostly forgettable stars, and not much that stood out as a great movie, or great performance.

Certainly if the quality doesn't get better, my entertainment dollars will wind up staying in my pocket, or will be spent on video games or other items I can enjoy.

Perhaps the slump is being caused by idiot celebrities inserting themselves into political causes, because no matter what side they take on any given issue, they're effectively alienating 50% of their potential audience every time they open their ignorant mouths.

I can't say that hasn't affected me along the way a bit. I used to really enjoy the work of Robert DeNiro, but his efforts in supporting Bill Clinton really turned me off, and now I have to remind myself to just ignore his politics when watching anything he is in.

Tom Cruise and his wackiness have killed my enjoyment of his movies for sure.

There are a few others in the same boat, so perhaps you are on to something there too. It's hard to say for sure, because even when I do knowingly despise an actor or actress I try to enjoy the remaining movie for what it is, a few hours worth of entertainment.

Ouch, the numbers from the second day of this supposed blockbuster are even worse than the first day. Numbers found here, showing a take of $6,295,755 for the second day (Thursday), which is down 35.5% from the first day, bringing in an average of $1,765 per screen, and a total of $16,051,500 for the two days the film has been out in the theatres.

My Wife dragged me to it Friday.  It was ok, but way too long!  And the theater was almost empty!  I think it is going to bomb.

I think it is going to bomb.

I went into the article above with mixed feelings on whether or not I really wanted the movie to bomb or not.

There is another movie out currently that I guess you could easily expect to see me wanting to have bomb badly. (3 guesses, first 2 don't count, as to which Broken movie that may be... ooops, did I just give a clue there, sorry!)

On Kong though, I really started out not caring that much either way. After reading a few more reviews of it though, and reading some of the comments here, I've churned through my thoughts a bit more and am coming down on the side of hoping for a mega bomb.

How'd I get to that point? I could say perhaps $150+ million or so ways got me there.

First, $200 million just seems absolutely friggin' ridiculous for a budget for a movie. It's at least $150 million too much. Even if you take a couple of $20 milliion per picture stars and put them together, you'd still have $10 left over to do something with. At the most $60 - $70 million should be enough. At the absolute worst on the high end side, $100 to maybe as much as $120 million should be considered excessive. But $200+ million, that's just insanity.

If I'm a stockholder, I want my money back, and I want whatever CEO signed off and greenlighted the project pulled into the board room to be fired.

I know Peter Jackson made a ton of money for the studios with the Lord of the Rings triology, so he gets a bit more freedom in his budget and in projects he gets to do, but there had to have been some reasonable limit here.


Another reason -- the 3+ hour running time. Once I heard that was the running length of the picture, I knew I was gonna wind up having to pass on it. If I did want to see, it would have to be with my best friend, or maybe my kids. My wife would never sit that long for a movie, and heck, even my kids wouldn't have that much patience either. Even my friend would wind up turning a movie like that into a 4 or 5 trips to the can kinda movie (especially if he got one of the super-jumbo sized Cokes to drink while watching).


And finally, because this movie is yet again a sign that Hollywood has no creativity left. They keep turning out the same crap, and what little new and different crap they do turn out winds up including some "envelop pushing" message trying to convince me yet again to accept lifestyles that I don't feel I need to be preached about.


Gid brought up in the comments above, and even Little Whip's comments to some extent lean in that direction, that some movies that are at least more mainstream and more family friendly can do well in the theatres. Hollywood has forgotten that, in favor of sending messages of all kinds, and in favor of offering vehicles to some of the most disgusting liberal mouthpieces they can find. They honor pathetic individuals like Sean Penn, cheer when Whoopie Goldberg or Chris Rock take swings at the President when hosting the Oscars, and again, seem inclined to heap praise on a film about a same sex relationship between two "manly" guys.


Perhaps they will eventually return to making better quality movies, at a reasonable cost to the studios. Perhaps they'll even make more family friendly movies instead of turning out more of the same old crap. You know it's gotten bad when even the movies lampooning movies are lampooning other movies that did the same thing. (Not another teen movie, anyone?)

First, $200 million just seems absolutely friggin' ridiculous for a budget for a movie.

Foxnews is now saying it is closer to $300m. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179068,00.html

Foxnews is now saying it is closer to $300m. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179068,00.html

Either way, taking in right around $50 million for the first 5 days out isn't good, especially considering many of those that saw it came out saying they wouldn't see it again as it was too long and perhaps a bit too intense also.

It'll probably get back the cost and a bit more above it, but it may need the DVD revenue to do it. If so, then it was for all intents and purposes a bust, and if that is the case, some studio execs really could wind up losing jobs over it (and probably should).

I would say it's safe to say we are on the precipice of a serious tightening of the belt for the movie makers in Hollywood. With the continued "slump" at the box office, and the burgeoning costs of making movies, something has to give and it's likely to be the mega budgets that are making it difficult for Hollywood to make their money back without a serious reliance on DVD revenue which is really supposed to be pure gravy on top of the profits made while movies are in wide release. If so, we better all start saving our pennies as a few Hollywood stars may have to start holding out tin cups and begging for meal money.

[email protected]