'King Kong' Bombing Big Time at Box Office

FoxNews ^ | December 16,2005 | Roger Friedman

[heldmyw]

'King Kong' Bombing Big Time at Box Office Friday, December 16, 2005 By Roger Friedman

What's happened? Peter Jackson's "King Kong" — a three-hour, $300 million extravaganza that wowed advance screening audiences — is a catastrophe in the making.

On Thursday, Kong's take was a measly $6,295,755 — off $35.5 from Wednesday's weak $9,755,745 opening day. Kong ranks now as the 21st best Wednesday opening ever — a dubious distinction.

Something is certainly wrong. It could be the movie's daunting length, or even a slow middle section that would have benefited from cutting. The leads are all solid actors — Naomi Watts, Adrien Brody, Jack Black — but none of them is a star attraction. That might be the trouble, but I doubt it.

In fact, Kong seems like a no-brainer. Great special effects, and a main character — the ape — that is more three-dimensional than a lot of humans in movies this winter.

But there's some kind of snafu, and if Universal doesn't figure it out shortly, "King Kong" could turn into a king-sized headache.

[MattinNJ]

Jackson struck me as a man of Western Civ in the LOTR trilogy "Men of the West etc..."

I won't see Kong because I am an animal lover and can't stand the thought of Kong geting killed in the end. If my wife sees my 6'3" a$$ man cry one more time she will leave me for a younger, improved, version.

[Hodar]

My wife and I saw it; yes we went to a matinee.

It is over 3 hours long; the special effects are spectacular; but I found it rather dull.

How many times can you do King Kong? This is #4, if you count Mighty Joe Young I and II. And, the story ends in a depressing manner.

It's too intense for young children, so there goes the weekend family movie experience. It's too long for small children, and the movie is generally a bummer. A really expensive, over-hyped, over digitized bummer.

[Rome2000]

It is dumb to release a long weekend/Christmas vacation type movie on a weekday in the middle of December.

The box office will pick up over the holidays, there is no real competition and all the kids want to see it.

[marajade]

I don't he has the rights to Hobbit yet. I've heard he's working on it still.

[HairOfTheDog]

Might be... it didn't float my boat either... It won't be one we see in the theaters... it'll be a DVDer.

[birbear]

oh, and I understand it to be my problem. :)

I tend to go to movies where I'm familier with the "stars".

Also, I hated LOTR. I'm probably the only person in the world to feel that way. I hated the books and I sat through the first movie, bored to tears. So I have no interest in giving "PJ" any of my money.

[Richard Kimball]

I think it's a little early to call it a bomb, but I had been surprised that it had been declared a box office winner before it was released. The original King Kong was a brilliant piece of film making, far surpassing anything that had ever been done before. However, like Casablanca or Jaws, it was done about as well as it could be done the first time.

A $207 mil production budget is an incredible risk. This has to be a BIG hit just to break even.

[marajade]

Well maybe you just haven't had a lot of EXPOSURE to a lot of stars.

My favorite right now hasn't had a role in a movie... mainly TV. Sam Witwer of the new BSG.

[HairOfTheDog]

I love it when grouchy people who have no interest in the subject are among the first replies on a thread about the subject :~D

[ecurbh]

Yeah, I'm not sure why he decided to spend all his Oscar capital on a re-remake.

I still hope he does The Hobbit sooner rather than later.

[HairOfTheDog]

At least while Ian McKellen is still alive :~D

[Rocko]

Fortunately, I won't be around in 2077 to see the Lord of the Rings remake.

[birbear]

Just part of the club! Love me or hate me, here I am. :)

[indcons]

"On Thursday, Kong's take was a measly $6,295,755 — off $35.5 from Wednesday's weak $9,755,745 opening day."

Something wrong with these statistics....

[Boss_Jim_Gettys]

Check here.

Wednesday was $2700/screen and Thursday was $1700/screen.

Harry Potter opened at $10000/screen and Narnia at $6000/screen, but those were both on Fridays.

[indcons]

"Bareback Mountain averaged $14,112 and $12886 on the same days."

WTF?? Must be all those ads that tout it as a "wholesome family movie"

[fedupjohn]

Plus I heard the picture cost 200 mil to make... not 300. It'll easily make that. How much more than that, who knows?

Approx 50% of the gross goes to the theater, so if Kong costs 200M then it needs to gross 400M.

[birbear]

maybe I'm just grouchy because Kong isn't playing in my home town:

http://www.fandango.com/TheaterListings.aspx?location=Yuba%20City,%20CA&source=cityzipsearch

[HairOfTheDog]

So you can't even deliberately NOT go? Bummer!

[birbear]

Actually I haven't seen a single ad for it. I doubt it'll keep it's averages like that when it hits wide release this weekend. But still "interesting" (or disturbing) that it's doing relatively well in the theaters that it is being shown at.