'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.

[birbear]

I'd have to drive 40 miles to NOT see it.

[heldmyw]

Nah!!

That's to cover costs! It's a flop if it doesn't do exponential profits!

Banana-fueled monkey flop.

(BTW-Why weren't they excited about the T-REX? I'd have thought that a couple of eggs or some DNA would be a much better story than... Oh, wait! That's that Pliestocene Park thingie, isn't it?)

[marajade]

How do you know that?

[SerpentDove]

>>But still "interesting" (or disturbing) that it's doing relatively well in the theaters that it is being shown at.<<

You also said DIE,KONG,DIE.

You really hate this movie you haven't seen, don't you?

[Tax Government]

This is a movie with no hidden agenda or celebration of wickedness. So naturally, the usual subjects are going to trash it.

[HairOfTheDog]

"Bareback" is being shown so far only in a few selected markets... and since they're the only ones getting it, the artsy crowd flocks to it.

I haven't talked to one normal person who wants to go see it (and I'm not just basing that on FR... I live in a liberal town)

[marajade]

Its been forcasted to make 58 mil this weekend. Combine that with Wed and Thurs... that totals what 70 mil? in what five days... it'll be fine.

[Rocko]

If Jackson remade it, I could say I didn't see it twice.

[Rocko]

Its been forcasted to make 58 mil this weekend.

By the same people who said it would do as well as Titanic?

[birbear]

You also said DIE,KONG,DIE. You really hate this movie you haven't seen, don't you?

hehehehe... yup. And as is being discussed, I'd have to go 40 miles out of my way to see it, so it's not likely I will. (Unless some friends outside the area invite me to go see it with them.)

And, I admit, I'd probably even enjoy the movie. I just don't care for Peter Jackson movies. The couple I've seen have bored the life out of me. So I hope for him to fail.

Also, last week, this was touted as the best movie since Titanic (Which i also thought sucked). Critics and "those in the know" were predicting it to hit $400 million easily. I love to see people who throw such praise around to be wrong.

Basically, I delight in other people's misfortune.

[marajade]

No, an independent.

http://boxofficemojo.com

[paudio]

Solid actors? Maybe I'm out of it, a little, but I have no clue who Adrien Brody is, I thought Naomi Watts was a black model, and I can't picture Jack Black in anything other than a comedy.

Adrien Brody got Oscar in 2003 for The Pianist. I think you mixed up Naomi Watts with Naomi Campbell. Watt played in the Ring, and was nominated for Oscar in 2004 for 21 grams. Not that I trust Oscar, but they are new generation of movie stars that don't rely on look alone.

[HairOfTheDog]

Well, I have a lot of affection for Peter Jackson (as do a lot of others) for doing so beautifully those same LoTR movies you hated...

So you really do look like a fly in the butt balm. :~D

[birbear]

I think you mixed up Naomi Watts with Naomi Campbell.

That would be it. Thanks.

[MikeHu]

Maybe all that advertising in the mainstream media doesn't work anymore?

[paudio]

"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....

It should be off 35.5%, I think.

[indcons]

Check this out!! They have been hiding the fact that it is a homo movie:

[indcons]

Yep, you're right

[Rocko]

Maybe all that advertising in the mainstream media doesn't work anymore?

Or Universal is trying to launch a lead zeppelin.

[birbear]

Doesn't surprise me. I really don't know of too many people who would willingly go see an overtly gay movie. Most Americans just don't swing that way.

I will say, what I saw on Ebert and Roeper, it looked like a nicely filmed movie. (good cineatography and all that.) The subject matter sounds boring to me. (Most love stories are to me.)

And the few gay people I know. (And I only know two or so "outted" gays), aren't interested in "westerns". They're more apt to enjoy something like King Kong. (The two that I know are big time techies and they love CGI stuff.)

I just don't see who "Bareback" is supposed to cater to.