King Kong is gonna be King Bomb! Heaven's Gate II

[Gyaos]

Did you have any money invested in it? Did you own the rights to King Kong? Peter re-made a movie that he loved when he was a child and the studio gave him permission.!

I can think of a lot of movies people loved when they were a child and I don't see studios giving them permission to make a 3-hour, non-piss break, known ending with trailers showing the beast and selling points of the film. In other words, something is behind this film's promotion not to make it as successful as it could have been. I guess my attitude is from a film maker's point of view, not a film goer's. Sorry.

When I was a kid, King Kong was not my favourite monster movie. I'll be in Japan in April to see the new Gamera film.

Gyaos

P.S.: Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon oscars = 2; Last Samurai oscars = 0. And I have news 'Fast and Furious III' is being filmed in Tokyo! Now, that should be interesting!

 

[Meesh]

It sure as hell beats Mickey Rooney playing an Asian as he did in 'Breakfast at Tiffany's'.

That wasn't nearly as bad as John Wayne playing Genghis Khan. P.U.

 

[baltimoron]

Jerry Lewis' bucktoothed Chinaman was one of the most offensive, IMHO.

 

[Frosty]

Jerry Lewis' bucktoothed Chinaman was one of the most offensive, IMHO.

Yeah man, that was sick!!!!

 

[Gyaos]

Maybe they can have him take a nap in the middle of the movie so you can go have your "piss break". Why don't we just get to the bottom of why you are so jealous of Peter Jackson?

Cost to make movie: $200 million
Weekend receipts: $50 million (50% below projection)
Original projection: $100 million
Second projection: $63.5 million

It will be lucky to break even at all. Not jealous of Peter Jackson. He's a loser and the numbers indicate he's a loser. The bottom line another good movie ended up being a loser.

Gyaos.

P.S.: I saw the movie in September.

 

[lenharper]

Peter Jackson is a loser. Uh, yeah, right....

Let's see, he spearheaded a renaissance in the New Zealand film industry with his early horror gross out films (meet the feebles etc) and then scored with an art house hit (heavenly creatures) all of which helped train a work force that has captured a large share of the "outside of Hollywood" industry. New Zealand does very well and has a vibrant film economy not dependent on government handouts in large part becuase of the early accomplishments of Jackson.

Then he goes to Hollywood and makes three films that both make money and do not offend the fervent fans of a cult novel (LOR) -- no small accomlishment in itself. And while he does this he pays back the people who worked for free on his early films by giving them significant jobs on these big budget Hollywood features that they would not have secured if he hadn't stood up for them.

Then he remakes a classic movie and you know he is going to take heat for it (which is inevitable -- never make a remake of a film that was great to begin with -- look at Sabrina with harrison ford for example) and it scores solid "across the board" reviews and does decent but not great box office (as if that was any indication of the worth of a film -- look at the opening BO of films like Independence Day and Twister -- both pretty bad films that scored well in opening weekend grosses) and now he is a loser.

Seems to me Jackson's career (morally, artistically and financially) is so far shaping up to be a stellar one especially since until the after release market for Kong (which will appeal to fans of the original who have no desire to walk the gauntlet of IPOD wearing CroMagons who make up opening weekend crowds) is realized one will have no idea of the financial success of Kong. To call him a loser based on solid but unspectacular opening weekend number on a remake is narrow minded in the extreme.

 

[littleboyblue]

I think I understand where Gyaos is coming from. Taste in movies comes from the gut not the head, and Gyaos' s gut says no. E.g. when I saw Minority Report, I freaked out about the way it ended. In my anger I called Spielberg much worse things than loser, even though I've enjoyed many of his films.

Gyaos just take a deep breath. Not everyone has the same preferences.

 

[great bear]

That wasn't nearly as bad as John Wayne playing Genghis Khan. P.U.

Meesh, you trying to tell me that Ghengis Khan was not John Wayne? Shit I lose another bet.

 

[Keebler Elf]

Cost to make movie: $200 million
Weekend receipts: $50 million (50% below projection)
Original projection: $100 million
Second projection: $63.5 million

This movie will be like Titanic - it's a sleeper that will take off as word of mouth (which is excellent) spreads. Hmmm, how did Titanic do at the theatres again?...

 

[glaeken]

One reason for King Kong's low opening weekend box office is that being a long movie it can only be shown twice a night rather than the 3 or 4 times that a shorter movie could be shown. Fewer showings means means a smaller box office on any given day.

FYI, Titanic (another 3+ hour movie) grossed a little over $28M it's first weekend in 1997 which is about $40M in adjusted dollars. I'm not suggesting that King King will make as much as Titanic just that it's not easy to tell how well a movie will do based on one weekend.

What will determine the success of the movie will be it's staying power. If people keep going to the movie then theatres will continue to show it even though they can't show it as often.

As for not breaking even, the latest I heard was that King Kong has made over $145M worldwide. I think they're on track to easily recover the $207M cost.

 

[frankcastle]

Are those numbers for just north america? Because if it is and it is only the first week the movie will easily break even. Even if it didn't would that be the measure of a good movie? Just because a lot of people like something doesn't make it good. MacDonalds has served billions but no one would consider it particularly good food or fine dining. Survivor did great ratings but will it be considered on of the best all time shows(not ratings wise but in terms of quality)?

As for Peter Jackson being a loser. Let's not forget that he convinced a studio to allow him to make all three movies ahead of completing even one movie. That rarely ever happens. Most companies only invest in one movie at a time and wait for the results before agreeing to make sequels/continuations.

 

[Gyaos]

As for not breaking even, the latest I heard was that King Kong has made over $145M worldwide. I think they're on track to easily recover the $207M cost.

Oh that's not good. If it makes $207 million, remove 50% for taxes, so it has to make $320 million, a majority of that has to be in the USA alone, just to come even close to breaking even. A successful film has to do 3x as much as the cost to make it. Some countries charge exhorborant "Entertainment Taxes" and it doesn't equal to 5%, more like 65%. The $207 million it cost was spent. The receipts are revenue, not including the tax.

Kong merchadise is way off, unfortunately. "Kids" and men aren't going to Toys Aren't Us to pick up their latest topless Barbie doll in Kong's fat hand under license. Toy companies aren't jumping quick to make the new Kong action figures. And they are not buying their XBOX 360 Kong Game either. In fact, all Kong TV commercials have been pulled.

Sorry to say, I think the movie industry is seriously going to reconsider working with Peter Jackson next time, or seriously reconsider lowering his name from film marque credits. He's going to be left with Nightmare on Elm Street remakes and forced to do 90 to 120 minutes. And it's about time.

When the numbers don't add up, just don't make the movie. Or find a lovely $107 million trimming we can all be happy with. Thanks.

Gyaos

P.S.: FYI "A Nightmare on Elm Street 1" cost $8 million. Brought in $24 million. That's 3x.

 

[Keebler Elf]

Just admit you're wrong. You're looking petty now.

 

[Don]

All reports say this movie will make money. It won't make Titianic money or maybe even LOTR money but it should haul in ~200 mil domestic and another ~200 mil overseas. Much like Titanic, it has very favorable word of mouth and should see relatively minimal dropoff in the coming weeks. It not the type of movie to drawn in hordes of die-hard fans like LOTR or Star Wars on opening weekend but should sustain for a bit.

This ain't Heaven's Gate or even Waterworld.

 

[glaeken]

Oh that's not good. If it makes $207 million, remove 50% for taxes, so it has to make $320 million, a majority of that has to be in the USA alone, just to come even close to breaking even. A successful film has to do 3x as much as the cost to make it. Some countries charge exhorborant "Entertainment Taxes" and it doesn't equal to 5%, more like 65%. The $207 million it cost was spent. The receipts are revenue, not including the tax.

I never said that they only had to make $207M to break even. Of course they have to make more. That's why they call ticket sales "gross box office" and not "net box office".

And where did you get the 3x factor and the 50% tax rate? Do you have a legitimate source or did you come up with that yourself?

 

[glaeken]

Just admit you're wrong. You're looking petty now.

You mean he wasn't looking petty before?

 

[langeweile]

Just admit you're wrong. You're looking petty now.

hE IS NEVER WRONG....

 

[Garrett]

Sorry to say, I think the movie industry is seriously going to reconsider working with Peter Jackson next time, or seriously reconsider lowering his name from film marque credits. He's going to be left with Nightmare on Elm Street remakes and forced to do 90 to 120 minutes. And it's about time.

Have you seen Jackson's other movies? Meet the feebles? brain dead? how about heavenly creatures, which is perhaps the best combination of serious storyline and cgi I have ever seen (I thought it was amazing... never mind starring the always excellent Kate Winslett). Jackson is probably the best director working today, and not simply because of LOTR (though he did an amazing job... ). Just for perspective, I consider Spielberg and Lucas overrated hacks... considering your testimony to Boba Fett... to criticize Jackson is ridiculous.

 

[Meesh]

For arguments sake, let's say King Kong is a 'bust' and ONLY breaks even at the box office (I'm betting it will do better, but...)

So, throw in the revenues from a couple of DVD releases, the rental revenue (which includes hotel movies etc.) and then marketing (c'mon, a HUGE monkey? It'll make MEGAbucks in marketing rights) and nobody will need hold a tag day for the producers.

 

[Gyaos]

Ok Gyaos, Lets play your game. If it is true that a movie must make 3X its cost to be considered successful and if you feel that one unsuccessful film (yet undetermined) should be the end of Peter Jacksons career then shouldn't the following list of directors no longer be allowed to make films?.

No. Only Peter Jackson. He sucks.

On the other hand, Tim Burton too. He always sucks.